[News] Microsoft OOXML: Fail

On Mar 1, 10:03 pm, "[H]omer" <s....TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> > "[H]omer" <s....TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote innews:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@sky.matrix:
> >> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> >>>http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time....
>
> >> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can
> >> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
> >> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>
> > No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I
> > said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.
>
> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely negative
> votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions (I don't know
> for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you further
> assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.
>
> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of OOXML,
> of Roy's claims that Microsoft attempted to buy the Indian vote, is
> without foundation, since you assert that they may not in fact have
> rejected it at all.
>
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
> >> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
> >> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
> >> conducted in secret.
>
> > It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open
> > discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret
> > about that.
>
> Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of the
> public and the Press?
>
>  "2.4  Can press or observers attend?
>      No, press and observers may not attend, and the meeting may not be
>      recorded or broadcast in any way."
>
> http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q2-4
>
> And where is the public record of the minutes of these meetings?
>
> >> Please feel free to share any information about the BRM which is
> >> not a secret, starting with who you are and what your involvement
> >> is in the process. Unless that is also a secret.
>
> > I actually thought is was pretty clear - I am a member of the Danish
> > national body participating in the BRM. I work for the Danish branch
> > of an American company called CIBER. CIBER is a certified
> > Microsoft-partner on whatever level (I can't remember).
>
> Thank you.
>
> To return the courtesy; I am a Red Hat and Fedora user and contributor.
> I am now retired, although I used to work as an IT consultant in the
> offshore Oil and Gas industry. I am not affiliated with Red Hat, nor any
> other Linux vendor, beyond the fact of my voluntary contributions.

You worked for the single most corrupt entity on the entire planet. I
don't know what to make of your unbridled hatred of Microsoft in light
of this news, but I'll mull it over and get back to you. One question
though; Did you ever criticize your employers for their complete lack
of morals?

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:

> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the Indian
> vote yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a comment on
> Brian Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the responses from
> ECMA.
>
> [0]
> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-...sleep.a
>
You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can not in
any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any country is
the same as a negative vote.'?

So which is it? Do you endorse those figure or not?

As for the correlation between the Indian vote and Microsoft's bribe,
well there's no mystery there. The Vole's bribe failed, obviously. That
doesn't mean they didn't make that bribe, nor does it mean that
Microsoft are somehow absolved of corruption merely because their
underhand tactics were unsuccessful.

Is a bank robber any less of a bank robber merely because he is caught?

Of course the /direct/ correlation is merely a question of speculation,
but of course there are very strong inferences. There is a point at
which a series of events is no longer a coincidence, but actually a
predictable pattern.

Microsoft's corruption in their aggressive attempts to have OOXML
ratified is well documented, and in some cases actually proven (Sweden,
for example). But there is so much secrecy surrounding both the proposed
standard; the underlying motives; and the standards process itself,
that it is often very difficult to qualify any corruption claims
conclusively - a fact that Microsoft no doubt depends on.

As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive BRM,
perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was conducted in
secret. Or is that a secret too?

Please feel free to share any information about the BRM which is not a
secret, starting with who you are and what your involvement is in the
process. Unless that is also a secret.

One fact in particular that I would like some clarification on, is how
anyone could reasonably be expected to review the comments from a 6000
page specification in just five days.

I'd have a hypothesis; would you like to hear it?

It /isn't/ possible to do so, hence the secrecy, because if the manner
in which "consensus" was /actually/ reached in such debate was widely
known, there would be a public enquiry and corruption charges.

At the very least, and by your own admission, the processes "could both
do with a bit of - ahem - improving".

I find it odd that you should question the veracity of those criticise
the BRM. What sort of reaction should you expect from those who are kept
in the dark about these covert proceedings? Isn't speculation a natural
reaction, given the blanket of secrecy?

Also, may I ask what someone in your position is doing in the Linux
Advocacy group? I only ask this because it seems strange that someone
who is obviously as busy as you are promoting OOXML, should choose to
spend his time hunting for negative opinions of OOXML and the BRM in
what is, comparatively speaking, an obscure section of the Internet.

If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence OOXML
critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
22:00:39 up 71 days, 19:36, 4 users, load average: 0.27, 0.06, 0.03

"[H]omer" <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> writes:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>
>> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the Indian
>> vote yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a comment on
>> Brian Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the responses from
>> ECMA.
>>
>> [0]
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-...sleep.a
>>
> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can not in
> any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any country is
> the same as a negative vote.'?
>
> So which is it? Do you endorse those figure or not?
>
> As for the correlation between the Indian vote and Microsoft's bribe,
> well there's no mystery there. The Vole's bribe failed, obviously. That
> doesn't mean they didn't make that bribe, nor does it mean that
> Microsoft are somehow absolved of corruption merely because their
> underhand tactics were unsuccessful.
>
> Is a bank robber any less of a bank robber merely because he is caught?


Erm, yes?

"[H]omer" <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@sky.matrix:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:

>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-
>> to-sleep.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
>>
> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can not
> in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
> country is the same as a negative vote.'?

No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I said
was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.

> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
> conducted in secret.

It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open
discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret
about that.

> Please feel free to share any information about the BRM which is not a
> secret, starting with who you are and what your involvement is in the
> process. Unless that is also a secret.

I actually thought is was pretty clear - I am a member of the Danish
national body participating in the BRM. I work for the Danish branch of
an american company called CIBER. CIBER is a certified Microsoft-partner
on whatever level (I can't remember).

> One fact in particular that I would like some clarification on, is how
> anyone could reasonably be expected to review the comments from a 6000
> page specification in just five days.

Well - that was exactly the dilemma.

> It /isn't/ possible to do so, hence the secrecy, because if the manner
> in which "consensus" was /actually/ reached in such debate was widely
> known, there would be a public enquiry and corruption charges.

So how do you think consensus was reached?

> At the very least, and by your own admission, the processes "could
> both do with a bit of - ahem - improving".

You are completely correct on this. I have no idea what to have done to
the processes, but I hope they will figure it out,

> I find it odd that you should question the veracity of those criticise
> the BRM. What sort of reaction should you expect from those who are
> kept in the dark about these covert proceedings? Isn't speculation a
> natural reaction, given the blanket of secrecy?

I do not question the "veracity" (whatever that means) of the critics. I
am just pointing out that I do not agree that e.g. an "abstain"-vote can
generally be thought as a "not positive" vote. "Abstain" is "Abstain".

> Also, may I ask what someone in your position is doing in the Linux
> Advocacy group? I only ask this because it seems strange that someone
> who is obviously as busy as you are promoting OOXML, should choose to
> spend his time hunting for negative opinions of OOXML and the BRM in
> what is, comparatively speaking, an obscure section of the Internet.

You are correct - it is an abscure section of the internet - but
nonetheless a section I have enjoyed using through-out the years.

)

I didn't know this was a members-only party but I saw someone linking to
my blog and just followed the link. I then saw some erronous comments
about OOXML and thought I'd help to clear things up.

> If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence OOXML
> critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.

I do not feel any need to promote OOXML. But I think we can all agree on
the benefits of having a qualified discussion.

?

--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> "[H]omer" <spam DeleteThis @uce.gov> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@sky.matrix:
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:

>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-...sleep.a
>>>
>>>
>> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can
>> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
>> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>
> No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I
> said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.

So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely negative
votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions (I don't know
for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you further
assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.

Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of OOXML,
of Roy's claims that Microsoft attempted to buy the Indian vote, is
without foundation, since you assert that they may not in fact have
rejected it at all.

Thank you for your clarification.

>> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
>> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
>> conducted in secret.
>
> It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open
> discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret
> about that.

Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of the
public and the Press?

"2.4 Can press or observers attend?
No, press and observers may not attend, and the meeting may not be
recorded or broadcast in any way."

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q2-4

And where is the public record of the minutes of these meetings?

>> Please feel free to share any information about the BRM which is
>> not a secret, starting with who you are and what your involvement
>> is in the process. Unless that is also a secret.
>
> I actually thought is was pretty clear - I am a member of the Danish
> national body participating in the BRM. I work for the Danish branch
> of an American company called CIBER. CIBER is a certified
> Microsoft-partner on whatever level (I can't remember).

Thank you.

To return the courtesy; I am a Red Hat and Fedora user and contributor.
I am now retired, although I used to work as an IT consultant in the
offshore Oil and Gas industry. I am not affiliated with Red Hat, nor any
other Linux vendor, beyond the fact of my voluntary contributions.

>> One fact in particular that I would like some clarification on, is
>> how anyone could reasonably be expected to review the comments from
>> a 6000 page specification in just five days.
>
> Well - that was exactly the dilemma.

Yes, but what was the /result/, in terms of how the process was conducted?

>> It /isn't/ possible to do so, hence the secrecy, because if the
>> manner in which "consensus" was /actually/ reached in such debate
>> was widely known, there would be a public enquiry and corruption
>> charges.
>
> So how do you think consensus was reached?

Without press coverage, or impartial accounts from members of the
public, it is quite impossible to say. Hence my concerns with respect to
the covert nature of those proceedings.

>> At the very least, and by your own admission, the processes "could
>> both do with a bit of - ahem - improving".
>
> You are completely correct on this. I have no idea what to have done
> to the processes, but I hope they will figure it out,

I hope they also make their findings a matter of public record.

>> I find it odd that you should question the veracity of those
>> criticise the BRM. What sort of reaction should you expect from
>> those who are kept in the dark about these covert proceedings?
>> Isn't speculation a natural reaction, given the blanket of secrecy?
>>
>>
>
> I do not question the "veracity" (whatever that means)

"Accuracy and truthfulness".

> of the critics. I am just pointing out that I do not agree that e.g.
> an "abstain"-vote can generally be thought as a "not positive" vote.
> "Abstain" is "Abstain".

Actually I was referring to your cynicism of Roy's assertions that
Microsoft had attempted to buy the Indian vote.

With regards to whether or not an abstention is tantamount to a
rejection, I agree that it is not. However, as I stated before, it is
entirely unreasonable to expect comments on a 6000 page specification to
be fully debated within a 5 day time-frame. Therefore it is my
contention that this process was unfairly and perhaps even deliberately
weighted in favour of seeking approval, based on abstentions that were
calculated to be likely, given the complexity of the process. The fact
that this arguable corruption of the process may not have succeeded,
does not alter the possibility that it was attempted.

Indeed, I will go as far as to say that Microsoft planned this tactic
from the very beginning, which is the very reason for the distended
nature of the OOXML specifications to begin with. Creating an impossibly
large and technical specification document, then seeking fast-track
approval, seem like an obviously devious tactic to me.

For this reason, I believe that the submission of OOXML for fast-track
approval should have been rejected from the outset, but the continued
endorsement of this submission, by all parties concerned, seems like
more than a mere error in judgement ... it clearly seems to be
corruption of the standards process.

As someone who might very well be affected by the outcome of that
process (potentially having to endure years of non-interoperable
documents), it is naturally in my interest to seek answers and remedies
to my concerns. Hence this discussion.

>> Also, may I ask what someone in your position is doing in the Linux
>> Advocacy group? I only ask this because it seems strange that
>> someone who is obviously as busy as you are promoting OOXML, should
>> choose to spend his time hunting for negative opinions of OOXML
>> and the BRM in what is, comparatively speaking, an obscure section
>> of the Internet.
>
> You are correct - it is an abscure section of the internet - but
> nonetheless a section I have enjoyed using through-out the years.
>
> )
>
> I didn't know this was a members-only party but I saw someone linking
> to my blog and just followed the link. I then saw some erronous
> comments about OOXML and thought I'd help to clear things up.

Please excuse my scepticism. As a long-time Usenet user, I keep
forgetting about Google Groups, and its tendency to link people back to
discussions in COLA, apparently out of the blue.

>> If it is in fact your paid occupation to search for and silence
>> OOXML critics, then I apologise for my presumptuousness.
>
> I do not feel any need to promote OOXML. But I think we can all agree
> on the benefits of having a qualified discussion.

By all means.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
03:03:22 up 72 days, 39 min, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00

In article <l1ip95-r7p.ln1.RemoveThis@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> wrote:
> Indeed, I will go as far as to say that Microsoft planned this tactic
> from the very beginning, which is the very reason for the distended
> nature of the OOXML specifications to begin with. Creating an impossibly
> large and technical specification document, then seeking fast-track
> approval, seem like an obviously devious tactic to me.

What you overlook is that the spec was originally much smaller. It was
the anti-OOXML people who complained that it was not detailed enough,
which forced MS to beef it up to move forward.

--
--Tim Smith

"[H]omer" <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> writes:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@sky.matrix:
>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-...sleep.a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can
>>> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
>>> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>>
>> No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I
>> said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.
>
> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely negative
> votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions (I don't know
> for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you further
> assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.
>
> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of OOXML,
> of Roy's claims that Microsoft attempted to buy the Indian vote, is
> without foundation, since you assert that they may not in fact have
> rejected it at all.
>
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
>>> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
>>> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
>>> conducted in secret.
>>
>> It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open
>> discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret
>> about that.
>
> Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of the
> public and the Press?

Idiot. WTF would you want the public and the press in there for? You'd
never get anything done.

Sometimes I wonder if you're health insurance is withholding your meds.

____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Sunday 02 March 2008 01:20 : \____

> CIBER is a certified Microsoft-partner
> on whatever level (I can't remember).

I believe you remember all too well because you read the criticisms about the
Danish team being stacked.

Recommended reading:

How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style

,----[ Quote ]
| In the section of an internal manual on effective evangelism, written in 1997
| by James Plamondon, Technical Evangelist, he lays out an elaborate series of
| steps to get Microsoft's platforms accepted as de facto standards. Among the
| steps lists are working behind the scenes with supposedly independent but
| actually pliable and supportive analysts and consultants.    
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958

(Made possible thanks to [H]omer, who extracted the text about stacking
committees)

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "Seeing bad movies only encourages them"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
06:00:04 up 37 days, 15:54, 3 users, load average: 0.82, 0.91, 1.13
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008 DeleteThis @lundstocholm.invalid> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups DeleteThis @schestowitz.com> wrote in
> news:1713876.KhxXeN0Nff@schestowitz.com:
>
>> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Saturday 01 March 2008 15:33 : \____
>
>>> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the Indian
>>> vote yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a comment on
>>> Brian Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the responses from
>>> ECMA.
>>
>> An unsuccessful case of misconduct does not make it any less of a
>> misconduct.
>
> Good one, Roy.
>
> A: Why are you whistling?
> B: So scare off the tigers
> A: But there are no tigers in Copenhagen
> B: Well, there you go!

Attempted bribery is a crime, just as actual bribery is. You seem to be
rather confused on this point.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Sinister Midget <fardblossom.DeleteThis@gmail.com> espoused:
> On 2008-03-01, Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008.DeleteThis@lundstocholm.invalid> claimed:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com> wrote in news:3515290.LKe7cgyNvA@schestowitz.com:
>>
>>> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Saturday 01 March 2008 10:30 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com> wrote in
>>>>>> Microsoft needs to give up ... now. It's just getting embarrassing.
>>>>>> Their desperation is as palpable as their motives.
>>>>>
>>>>> They seem to have bribed India. I'll post about it in the afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> Ahem - did you miss how the Indians actually voted yesterday?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> So could you please explain to me the correlation between the Indian vote
>> yesterday and Microsoft bribing them? According to a comment on Brian
>> Jones' blog [0] India disapproved 97.86% of the responses from ECMA.
>>
>> [0]
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-...sleep.a
>
> Giving a bribe may be for "services rendered", but there's no absolute
> assurance you bought the vote until the vote is cast. What is the
> briber going to do to the bribeee, sue them for taking money and doing
> nothing illegal?
>
> Ask Hillary about her super-delegates if you don't want to take my word
> for it.
>

Attempted bribery is illegal.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Linonut <linonut.DeleteThis@bollsouth.nut> espoused:
> * Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Yes, I was going to post about it in a minute. They now change their tune.
>> Spin, spin, spin... but no ISO for the time being.
>
> I think the best think Microsoft can hope for is that OOXML gets put on
> the "normal" track at ISO.
>

A 6,000 page document should be expected to take several years before
it's ready. Considering that we already have ODF, that Microsoft could
readily support ODF if they wanted to, and that the cost of trying to
standardise a second standard in order to do exactly the same thing as
the first, but using a 6,000 page document which is known to have flaws
in the thousands (see all the comments) is going to outweigh any
possible benefit to those involved in the standardisation process. Oh
yeah, except Microsoft.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

In article <6s3q95-psg.ln1.TakeThisOut@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> it's ready. Considering that we already have ODF, that Microsoft could
> readily support ODF if they wanted to, and that the cost of trying to
> standardise a second standard in order to do exactly the same thing as
> the first,

It doesn't do exactly the same thing as the first, and so your whole
argument falls apart.




--
--Tim Smith

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <l1ip95-r7p.ln1.DeleteThis@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>> Indeed, I will go as far as to say that Microsoft planned this tactic
>> from the very beginning, which is the very reason for the distended
>> nature of the OOXML specifications to begin with. Creating an impossibly
>> large and technical specification document, then seeking fast-track
>> approval, seem like an obviously devious tactic to me.
>
> What you overlook is that the spec was originally much smaller. It was
> the anti-OOXML people who complained that it was not detailed enough,
> which forced MS to beef it up to move forward.

Moan moan moan. The bottom line is that OOXML was/is not a standard,
but a detailed-design document for (in part) legacy Microsoft document
formats.

--
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed.
-- Bill Gates, http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html