| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballotrelated news: USA will not object to fast-track ballotPosted Jan 29, 2007 16:45 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: FFII on proposed OpenXML adoption
In related news, I just got an email from Jennifer Garner of INCITS, which is in charge of responding to OOXML on behalf of ANSI (which represents the USA to ISO). INCITS has decided "decided not to submit a contribution in response to JTC 1 N 8455" (the fast-track ballot). Apparently, they only received three comments in time for the meeting on the fast-track ballot, thanks to the tight schedule. (See the complete list of comments.) However, one can still send them comments (email isot@ansi.org and jgarner@itic.org) in the hope of influencing the final US vote on the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML File Formats (whenever that is). (It is perhaps worth noting that, according to an email I received from Rob Weir of IBM, both IBM and Microsoft have representatives on the INCITS executive board [which is what met on January 2325 to determine whether to respond to the fast-track ballot].)
(Log in to post comments)
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 29, 2007 17:45 UTC (Mon) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link] Quote: "In related news, I just got an email from Jennifer Garner of INCITS, which is in charge of responding to OOXML on behalf of ANSI (which represents the USA to ISO). INCITS has decided "decided not to submit a contribution in response to JTC 1 N 8455" (the fast-track ballot)."
can you clarify? do they endorse or oppose the proposed standard? or is this only about the formal issues? if so, are they for or against the "fast-track" procedure
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 29, 2007 18:16 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] As far as I understand it, there has been no official vote "for" or "against" the OOXML standard. Rather, national representatives (such as ANSI and INCITS, in the case of the US), have until February 5 to send objections to the ISO regarding "fast-track" processing of OOXML (see Groklaw).According to Jennifer Garner, the INCITS executive board decided not to respond (i.e. not to object) to the fast-track ballot for OOXML. As I understand it, this does not mean that the US approves OOXML, but rather approves of ISO processing OOXML on a fast-track schedule. If the fast-track ballot is approved, OOXML will then go to an ISO subcommittee for a 5-month process. Apparently, there will still be a final US vote, via the INCITS/V1 standards committee, on whatever comes out of the ISO, although I'm not completely clear on this process or its deadlines. It must have been an interesting meeting, with IBM and Microsoft representatives going head-to-head. I wish the minutes were available to the public.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 29, 2007 19:13 UTC (Mon) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link] > It must have been an interesting meeting, with IBM and Microsoft> representatives going head-to-head. I wish the minutes were > available to the public.
Ditto.
> If the fast-track ballot is approved, OOXML will then go to an
...would this lead to the OOXML proposal dying sooner than if fast track had been rejected and it had to go through the regular process? If so, maybe this is a net win - having OOXML get whacked in five months has got to be better than having it linger for years in committee while MS makes PR hay from it.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 29, 2007 20:49 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Not likely. When it comes to political tasks like ratifying standards, MS is very, very good at greasing the wheels. I'm afraid that now nobody will have the time and ability to construct a convincing objection and OOXML will most likely be passed.
Oh well. Supposedly only 3 of us were opposed to the fast track anyway! Personally, I think that's really a raw deal that they didn't accept objections filed during business hours on the 24th. At least they still recorded them.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 1:03 UTC (Tue) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link] > Personally, I think that's really a raw deal that they didn't accept> objections filed during business hours on the 24th.
Yeah. I got mine in by the 22nd - the day before the meeting *started* - and they *still* ignored it.
<fume>
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 18:05 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] According to Jennifer Garner, the INCITS executive board decided not to respond (i.e. not to object) to the fast-track ballot for OOXML. So they will not object, even though ALL comments submitted on time (and probably most of the not submitted on time - I didn't check them all) were against the fast-track ? Good job, INCITS.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:24 UTC (Tue) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] You are asking them too much. The EOOXML is all way "fast-track" - even review phase included. It took 2+ weeks for community to perform some "skin deep" analysis of the spec. So now INCITS has to review in rush all sent in comments, verify their validity and make an official objection? All that in under one week???
It was all logical decision on their part to skip the "fast-track" part of ECMA in favor of the "5 month" period in ISO. ISO isn't ECMA - the committees there can go on for years discussing any particular (and not any particular) submission for standard.
Since more or less all interested parties are presented in ISO (e.g. EU/Asia which are very interested in having solid open document standard) would press M$ to the end. Especially since overlaps with existing ISO standard are so blunt. And if M$ would fail address all raised issues in time - do not expect EOOXML becoming a standard in any foreseeable future.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:56 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I admit that I don't really understand the standartization process and the relationship between the involved organizations. However, as far as I could tell, INCITS is in a position to say whether they aprove the fast-track process or not.
So, it makes no sense at all. Unless I am losing my mind, not having enough time to review the proposal and the comments is a damn good sign that fast-track is not suitable. This is basic common sense.
If you are being asked to support or not something that you do not understand, and silence means that you agree, the most logical action is not to support it until you have had the time to form an informed opinion.
|
|
||||||||||||