Comments on: “Commiserations to my successor” – OOXML Strikes Again! http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/ The Magic of Open Source Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:35:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Open Sourcerer » OOXML: In Trouble Down Under http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-835 The Open Sourcerer » OOXML: In Trouble Down Under Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:56:54 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/#comment-835 [...] Standards are for the benefit of us all. They should and must not be used for the benefit of one company so as to retain it’s Monopoly. Vote NO. Bookmark [...] [...] Standards are for the benefit of us all. They should and must not be used for the benefit of one company so as to retain it’s Monopoly. Vote NO. Bookmark [...]

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-356 Alan Lord Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:19:30 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/#comment-356 @Norbert, thanks for the link and good luck with your proposal. With <a href="http://www.groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">PJ</a> behind it you'll get some good traction. Al @Norbert, thanks for the link and good luck with your proposal. With PJ behind it you’ll get some good traction.

Al

]]> By: Norbert Bollow http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-355 Norbert Bollow Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:16:12 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/#comment-355 That “standardization by corporation” threat is precisely why we need <a href="http://OpenISO.org/" rel="nofollow">OpenISO.org</a>. That “standardization by corporation” threat is precisely why we need OpenISO.org.

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-348 Alan Lord Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:05:53 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/#comment-348 I agree with your summary Peter. I'm not so sure about how they (the ISO) deal with the aftermath they now find themselves in though. Clearly something has been badly broken by M$ and some kind of justice should be brought to bear. They have really screwed something that worked - most of the time - for the benefit of everyone. Now it's fscked. We are providing a venue for individuals to examine and "comment" on the comments submitted at the September vote. It is at http://www.dis29500.org. If you haven't already, pay it a visit. Thanks Alan I agree with your summary Peter.

I’m not so sure about how they (the ISO) deal with the aftermath they now find themselves in though.

Clearly something has been badly broken by M$ and some kind of justice should be brought to bear. They have really screwed something that worked – most of the time – for the benefit of everyone. Now it’s fscked.

We are providing a venue for individuals to examine and “comment” on the comments submitted at the September vote. It is at http://www.dis29500.org. If you haven’t already, pay it a visit.

Thanks

Alan

]]> By: Peter http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-347 Peter Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:57:13 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/#comment-347 The problem is that only the SPIRIT of the rules were broken. Like with Kerberos, Microsoft was quick to spot the delta between the spirit of the rules and what they say in text and abuse it to basically destroy yet another useful thing. ISO was defenseless against this blatant abuse of process because nobody had ever encountered such an unethical organisation like Microsoft before, and this also goes for the incredible naive 'changes' in national voting protocol MS managed to convince people of. If ISO wants to pull itself out of the hole it'll first have to ditch the new P members, and if it has any smarts it should throw out MSOOXML altogether until it has repaired the internal damage inflicted by MS. Only after that would I permit MS to submit anything again. Let them take ISO to court for it - it would be very interesting to see the complete submission of abuses that took place during the voting and a formal damage assessment to any other standards process that was underwya when MS added non functional P members. If I had an industry whose standard was affected by this I'd have a think if I wanted to go near MS products again because they had just gone up in price.. The problem is that only the SPIRIT of the rules were broken. Like with Kerberos, Microsoft was quick to spot the delta between the spirit of the rules and what they say in text and abuse it to basically destroy yet another useful thing.

ISO was defenseless against this blatant abuse of process because nobody had ever encountered such an unethical organisation like Microsoft before, and this also goes for the incredible naive ‘changes’ in national voting protocol MS managed to convince people of.

If ISO wants to pull itself out of the hole it’ll first have to ditch the new P members, and if it has any smarts it should throw out MSOOXML altogether until it has repaired the internal damage inflicted by MS. Only after that would I permit MS to submit anything again. Let them take ISO to court for it – it would be very interesting to see the complete submission of abuses that took place during the voting and a formal damage assessment to any other standards process that was underwya when MS added non functional P members.

If I had an industry whose standard was affected by this I’d have a think if I wanted to go near MS products again because they had just gone up in price..

]]>