[News] Microsoft OOXML: Fail

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@sky.matrix:

>> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely
>> negative votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions
>
> No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said
> that I do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as
> "against a change to the text"

So do you, or do you not, think that figures for the Indian vote
represent a rejection of those changes?

>> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
>> OOXML,
>
> India has not rejected OOXML by its vote.

You snipped the part where I speculated that you thought India had not
in fact rejected it.

So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's bribe
successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian vote,
given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does not
represent a rejection of the proposals?

> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving
> the text.

That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?

Phrasing it like that makes it sound like they were collaborating on a
fictional novel, not engaging in scientific debate over the integrity of
a proposed standard.

Was this process about furthering the cause of ratifying OOXML or not?

Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as easily be
an act of protest against a standards proposition which delegates
disagree with? After all, the participants in this process are NBs who
voted "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.

And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those participants'
abstention is highly significant, since in many instances it may signify
an inability to adequately address the overly complex and long-winded
specifications of this proposed standard. That /should/ have been taken
into account when considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this
instance, I believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and
therefore a rejection of the fast-track proposal. Was this issue ever
even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any other time?

Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/ endorsing
OOXML with that approval? If not, then what was the point of their
participation?

Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
"improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a forgone
conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a formality destined
to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this proposal.

Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
bureaucratic formalities.

It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious concerns
over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any of the more
serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this just a proof
reading exercise?

If that's all it was, then why the shroud of secrecy?

> Sometimes people need to sit down and discuss stuff without having it
> video-podcasted.

This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits of
replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an issue of
international interest, where the public have a right to know what is
discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.

The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day on
television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the OOXML
standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?

I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
justification for it whatsoever.

>>> 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."
>
> Your assertion is that all meetings in ISO should be subject to
> public access and the press. I do not agree with that.

This was not /just another/ meeting, this was a very high profile event
that could potentially affect the outcome of document interoperability
for years to come. That is very much in the public interest, and
/should/ have been open to public scrutiny. Again, as I stated, the fact
that it was /not/ is deeply suspicious, and leaves a question-mark over
the integrity of the ISO; the BRM participants; the BRM process itself;
the implications for the final outcome of the OOXML fast-track
proposition; and indeed the credibility of the proposed OOXML standard
itself, including its architects and the company that pays them.

--
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
16:38:59 up 72 days, 14:14, 4 users, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.01

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:39:24 +0000, [H]omer wrote:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@sky.matrix:
>
>>> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely
>>> negative votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions
>>
>> No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said
>> that I do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as
>> "against a change to the text"
>
> So do you, or do you not, think that figures for the Indian vote
> represent a rejection of those changes?
>
>>> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
>>> OOXML,
>>
>> India has not rejected OOXML by its vote.
>
> You snipped the part where I speculated that you thought India had not
> in fact rejected it.
>
> So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's bribe
> successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian vote,
> given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does not
> represent a rejection of the proposals?
>
>> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving
>> the text.
>
> That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?
>
> Phrasing it like that makes it sound like they were collaborating on a
> fictional novel, not engaging in scientific debate over the integrity of
> a proposed standard.
>
> Was this process about furthering the cause of ratifying OOXML or not?
>
> Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as easily be
> an act of protest against a standards proposition which delegates
> disagree with? After all, the participants in this process are NBs who
> voted "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.
>
> And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those participants'
> abstention is highly significant, since in many instances it may signify
> an inability to adequately address the overly complex and long-winded
> specifications of this proposed standard. That /should/ have been taken
> into account when considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this
> instance, I believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and
> therefore a rejection of the fast-track proposal. Was this issue ever
> even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any other time?
>
> Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
> voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/ endorsing
> OOXML with that approval? If not, then what was the point of their
> participation?
>
> Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
> "improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a forgone
> conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a formality destined
> to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this proposal.
>
> Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
> bureaucratic formalities.
>
> It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
> trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious concerns
> over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any of the more
> serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this just a proof
> reading exercise?
>
> If that's all it was, then why the shroud of secrecy?
>
>> Sometimes people need to sit down and discuss stuff without having it
>> video-podcasted.
>
> This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits of
> replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an issue of
> international interest, where the public have a right to know what is
> discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.
>
> The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
> national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day on
> television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the OOXML
> standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?
>
> I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
> justification for it whatsoever.
>
>>>> 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."
>>
>> Your assertion is that all meetings in ISO should be subject to
>> public access and the press. I do not agree with that.
>
> This was not /just another/ meeting, this was a very high profile event
> that could potentially affect the outcome of document interoperability
> for years to come. That is very much in the public interest, and
> /should/ have been open to public scrutiny. Again, as I stated, the fact
> that it was /not/ is deeply suspicious, and leaves a question-mark over
> the integrity of the ISO; the BRM participants; the BRM process itself;
> the implications for the final outcome of the OOXML fast-track
> proposition; and indeed the credibility of the proposed OOXML standard
> itself, including its architects and the company that pays them.

Well, I will give you credit [Homer] for at least taking the time to
discuss the subect matter with Jesper.

That's more than Roy Schestowitz has done.
In typical Schestowitz fashion he has run away.

Like I said, I am for open standards and have no axe to grind in this.
I really don't see any logical reason why a set of specs can't be drafted
that everyone from Microsoft to OpenOffice etc can't use.

I am under the impression that RTF fills that need already?



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Linonut wrote:
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <l1ip95-r7p.ln1.TakeThisOut@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <spam.TakeThisOut@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.

The "detail" that Smith alludes to was hidden in the obfuscation of
Microsoft's proprietary extensions to support older proprietary
document formats - something which does not even belong in in a
supposedly "open" specifications proposal in the first place. /This/
was the motivation for the detractors' demands, not some exercise in
bureaucratic pedantry.

Is Smith seriously claiming that Microsoft could not simply document
those proprietary blobs without extending the OOXML specifications by
thousands of pages?

That's one Hell of a lot of proprietary blobs, isn't it?

--
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
16:53:23 up 72 days, 14:29, 4 users, load average: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01

In article <ql2r95-7v2.ln1.DeleteThis@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> The "detail" that Smith alludes to was hidden in the obfuscation of
> Microsoft's proprietary extensions to support older proprietary
> document formats - something which does not even belong in in a
> supposedly "open" specifications proposal in the first place. /This/
> was the motivation for the detractors' demands, not some exercise in
> bureaucratic pedantry.
>
> Is Smith seriously claiming that Microsoft could not simply document
> those proprietary blobs without extending the OOXML specifications by
> thousands of pages?
>
> That's one Hell of a lot of proprietary blobs, isn't it?

You might want to consider actually looking at the spec sometime,
instead of just relying on what Roy posts about it. Those proprietary
blobs you keep talking about mostly exist only in Roy's imagination.

--
--Tim Smith

"[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:tq1r95-ng2.ln1@sky.matrix:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@sky.matrix:
>
>>> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely
>>> negative votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions
>>
>> No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said
>> that I do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as
>> "against a change to the text"
>
> So do you, or do you not, think that figures for the Indian vote
> represent a rejection of those changes?

AFAIR the Indians were cited on voting 100% either dissaprove, abstain or
not at all. I am not commenting on the distribution of Indian votes in the
three categories since that is a matter of ISO/IEC.

>>> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
>>> OOXML,
>>
>> India has not rejected OOXML by its vote.
>
> You snipped the part where I speculated that you thought India had not
> in fact rejected it.

Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had been
bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy did not
initially back up his claim with a reference.

> So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's bribe
> successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian vote,
> given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does not
> represent a rejection of the proposals?

What do you want me to say? Everything is possible.

>> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving
>> the text.
>
> That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?

Why?

> Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as easily be
> an act of protest against a standards proposition which delegates
> disagree with?

Yes - and it could be interpreted the other way. I am not saying that
either is the truth for a specific comment. I am saying that only focusing
on a single interpretation as representing the only truth is wrong (since
there are other interpretations).

After all, the participants in this process are NBs who
> voted "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.

And also the ones voting "Yes".

> And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those participants'
> abstention is highly significant, since in many instances it may signify
> an inability to adequately address the overly complex and long-winded
> specifications of this proposed standard. That /should/ have been taken
> into account when considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this
> instance, I believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and
> therefore a rejection of the fast-track proposal.

Ok - you are naturally entitled to believe what you want.

> Was this issue ever
> even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any other time?

As reported elsewhere we spent the better part of a whole day debating
precicely the ballot itself, the choices and their meaning.

> Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
> voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/ endorsing
> OOXML with that approval?

I'll say it again: The BRM was not about approving/dissaproving DIS 29500.
It was about fixing errors/flaws/inaccuracies in it.

> If not, then what was the point of their
> participation?

To improve the specification.

> Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
> "improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a forgone
> conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a formality destined
> to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this proposal.
>
> Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
> bureaucratic formalities.

Of course it was.

> It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
> trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious concerns
> over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any of the more
> serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this just a proof
> reading exercise?

The reason why we managed to fix such a small number of concrete Responses
was indeed that we spent a lot of time debating the "real", big issues as
interoperability, conformance, scope, deprecation, bitmasks, date-systems,
password-hashing, content embedding, localization (support for
bidirectional text), measurement of lengths, size etc, etc etc.

> This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits of
> replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an issue of
> international interest, where the public have a right to know what is
> discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.

Yeah, well ... ISO doesn't work this way. It also didn't work this way when
ODF was passed through the exact same commitee. I don't on principle see
why it is suddenly a problem now. Are you by this saying that OOXML is more
important to "the world" than ODF? I do not agree with this.

> The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
> national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day on
> television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the OOXML
> standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?
>
> I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
> justification for it whatsoever.

I am not trying as much to justify it - I am simply saying that it's just
the way it is.

> This was not /just another/ meeting, this was a very high profile event
> that could potentially affect the outcome of document interoperability
> for years to come. That is very much in the public interest, and
> /should/ have been open to public scrutiny. Again, as I stated, the fact
> that it was /not/ is deeply suspicious, and leaves a question-mark over
> the integrity of the ISO; the BRM participants; the BRM process itself;
> the implications for the final outcome of the OOXML fast-track
> proposition; and indeed the credibility of the proposed OOXML standard
> itself, including its architects and the company that pays them.

....

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

On 03 Mar 2008 14:05:24 GMT, Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:


> Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
> either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had been
> bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy did not
> initially back up his claim with a reference.

So what else is new?

Roy Schestowitz makes all kinds of wild claims and then when asked for
proof of these claims he either posts something like "a reliable source
told me" or he refers back to one of his own hate sites for the proof.



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
> "[H]omer" <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:tq1r95-ng2.ln1@sky.matrix:
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>>> "[H]omer" <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@sky.matrix:

> Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
> either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had
> been bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy
> did not initially back up his claim with a reference.

But you understand now, presumably.

>> So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's
>> bribe successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian
>> vote, given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does
>> not represent a rejection of the proposals?
>
> What do you want me to say? Everything is possible.

Thanks for the clarification.

>>> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about
>>> improving the text.
>>
>> That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?
>
> Why?

For the reason that you snipped:

[quote]
>> Phrasing it like that makes it sound like they were collaborating
>> on a fictional novel, not engaging in scientific debate over the
>> integrity of a proposed standard.
[/quote]

I understand that "improving the text" may have been the formal
bureaucratic jargon for this process, but you are nonetheless greatly
understating the significance of this meeting, by continually trying to
distance delegates' participation from their opinions, with platitudes.

Regardless of the specific purpose of any given meeting, any vote which
furthers the successful ratification of OOXML is an idealogical "vote"
in its favour.

>> Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as
>> easily be an act of protest against a standards proposition which
>> delegates disagree with?
>
> Yes - and it could be interpreted the other way. I am not saying that
> either is the truth for a specific comment. I am saying that only
> focusing on a single interpretation as representing the only truth is
> wrong (since there are other interpretations).

In any other context, I might agree, but the BRM violated so many of the
principles of democratic debate that I feel this is an exception.

"However, 80%+ of the resolutions of the BRM were resolved by a ballot,
without discussion, without taking into account any dissenting views,
without reconciling any arguments. Indeed, there was not any opportunity
to even raise an objection to an issue decided by the ballot. Many of
the issues were decided in 6-5 or 7-6 split votes, with no discussion.
How can that be said to be a consensus? This is an utter failure to
follow the cardinal principles of JTC1 process."

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html

Under these circumstances, I feel that anything other than an
affirmative "approve" vote should have counted as a rejection. Indeed,
frankly I think that the whole BRM should have been abandoned as being
out of order, and reconvened to take place over a longer time-frame. As
it is, the whole process appears to have been nothing but a farce.

>> After all, the participants in this process are NBs who voted
>> "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.
>
> And also the ones voting "Yes".

"2.3 Who /should/ attend?
NBs that voted "disapprove" in the 2 September ballot have a duty to
send a delegation to the BRM."

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q2-3

Certainly the "approve" voters are also listed under the "who /may/
attend" category, but then one wonders exactly /why/ they would need to,
since their comments have presumably already been resolved.

Were there, in fact, any delegates present who had voted approve in the
2nd of September ballot?

Were you one of them?

>> And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those
>> participants' abstention is highly significant, since in many
>> instances it may signify an inability to adequately address the
>> overly complex and long-winded specifications of this proposed
>> standard. That /should/ have been taken into account when
>> considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this instance, I
>> believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and therefore a
>> rejection of the fast-track proposal.
>
> Ok - you are naturally entitled to believe what you want.

So I take it you /don't/ believe that?

Which part don't you agree with?

Is it:

a) The OOXML specifications are overly complex and long-winded?
b) Delegates were inadequately prepared to discuss a) above?
c) Abstentions were a manifestation of b) above?
d) OOXML should never have been accepted for fast-track approval?

>> Was this issue ever even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any
>> other time?
>
> As reported elsewhere we spent the better part of a whole day
> debating precicely the ballot itself, the choices and their meaning.

But did you specifically discuss the issue of the large and complex
specifications precluding OOXML from fast-track approval? Did you ever
discuss the possibility of revoking the submission altogether?

>> Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
>> voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/
>> endorsing OOXML with that approval?
>
> I'll say it again: The BRM was not about approving/dissaproving DIS
> 29500. It was about fixing errors/flaws/inaccuracies in it.

Read my question again.

Let me rephrase it. Would you say that merely /participating/ in the
BRM, after having already voted "disapprove" on the 2nd of September,
was indicative of a /desire/ to assist the process of ultimately
ratifying the OOXML standard? In other words, any action taken to
further the cause of OOXML represents a desire to ratify it ... an
endorsement, if you will. Regardless of the specific purpose of any
individual meeting or resolution.

>> If not, then what was the point of their participation?
>
> To improve the specification.

For the ultimate purpose of ratifying it.

>> Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
>> "improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a
>> forgone conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a
>> formality destined to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this
>> proposal.
>>
>> Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
>> bureaucratic formalities.
>
> Of course it was.

Well nothing you have stated so far seems to support that, and indeed
according to Rob Weir the whole process was just an exercise in going
through the motions.

>> It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
>> trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious
>> concerns over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any
>> of the more serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this
>> just a proof reading exercise?
>
> The reason why we managed to fix such a small number of concrete
> Responses was indeed that we spent a lot of time debating the "real",
> big issues as interoperability, conformance, scope, deprecation,
> bitmasks, date-systems, password-hashing, content embedding,
> localization (support for bidirectional text), measurement of
> lengths, size etc, etc etc.

I find it very hard to believe that so many highly technical issues were
effectively resolved in such a short time frame.

>> This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits
>> of replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an
>> issue of international interest, where the public have a right to
>> know what is discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.
>
> Yeah, well ... ISO doesn't work this way. It also didn't work this
> way when ODF was passed through the exact same commitee. I don't on
> principle see why it is suddenly a problem now. Are you by this
> saying that OOXML is more important to "the world" than ODF? I do not
> agree with this.

ODF was (and is) not encumbered by a plethora of technical and legal
issues, to anywhere near the same extent as OOXML, which is precisely
the reason for the rather distended OOXML ratification process to begin
with. It is also because of those issues that there is such public
interest in this process, not least of which because the specification's
architect seems to have gone to inordinate lengths to pervert the
standardisation process with corruption and bribery.

Under the circumstances, not only does the public have a right to know,
but indeed it should be a matter of priority that the public /does/ know
exactly what is going on, for the sake of the ISO's integrity, if
nothing else.

>> The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
>> national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day
>> on television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the
>> OOXML standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?
>>
>> I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
>> justification for it whatsoever.
>
> I am not trying as much to justify it - I am simply saying that it's
> just the way it is.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to just shrug my shoulders and walk away.

--
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
00:53:03 up 73 days, 22:28, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.01

On Tuesday 04 March 2008 12:53 am, [H]omer wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:tq1r95-ng2.ln1@sky.matrix:
>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>>>> "[H]omer" <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@sky.matrix:
>
>> Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
>> either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had
>> been bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy
>> did not initially back up his claim with a reference.
>
> But you understand now, presumably.

So he wants a reference for India being bribed by M$...well how about this:
[Old news from 2002, but nevertheless shows just what M$ do which doesn't get
reported in the "popular" press]
In 2002 Gates donated $100million to help India's fight against HIV. That was
reported by all the popular press, & what a great guy Gates was. But what
*wasn't* widely reported was the fact that Gates *also* funded $421 million in
the fight to stop India adopting Linux. In other words, in Gates's point of
view India adopting Linux was *four* times worse than their health initiative
against AIDS.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/

Now if *that* isn't a bribe....
M$ did it once, so who's to say they aren't *still* doing it, & won't do it
again in the future.


<snip>

--
Mandrake 2008.1 RC1
--On a 64bit system--

William Poaster wrote:

> In other words, in Gates's point of view India adopting Linux was
> *four* times worse than their health initiative against AIDS.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/

Good catch, and yes I remember that story well. It's disgusting - not so
much because of the bribery, but because Microsoft value their own greed
over human life. How sick.

--
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
12:56:34 up 74 days, 10:32, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

[H]omer wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> In other words, in Gates's point of view India adopting Linux was
>> *four* times worse than their health initiative against AIDS.
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/
>
> Good catch, and yes I remember that story well. It's disgusting - not
> so much because of the bribery, but because Microsoft value their own
> greed over human life. How sick.

It's laughable to listen to you jealous, petty "advocate" lusers blubber on
and on about MS and charity.

How much money did you donate to fighting AIDS in Nigeria when you were down
there exploiting the locals and working on proprietary systems for as much
money as you could get your dirty, greedy Linuxy hands on?

The huge charitable donations given by Gates, Microsoft employees and the
Gates Foundation each year to help developing countries makes the OSS world
look like the self-centered misers they really are.

On Tuesday 04 March 2008 12:56 pm, [H]omer wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> In other words, in Gates's point of view India adopting Linux was
>> *four* times worse than their health initiative against AIDS.
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/
>
> Good catch, and yes I remember that story well. It's disgusting - not so
> much because of the bribery, but because Microsoft value their own greed
> over human life. How sick.

Exactly.....& who's to say that, behind the scenes, this kind of thing *still*
happens.

--
Mandrake 2008.1 RC1
--On a 64bit system--

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

> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> In other words, in Gates's point of view India adopting Linux was
>> *four* times worse than their health initiative against AIDS.
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/
>
> Good catch, and yes I remember that story well. It's disgusting - not so
> much because of the bribery, but because Microsoft value their own greed
> over human life. How sick.

So how much did you donate?

William Poaster <wp.TakeThisOut@leafnode.amd64.eu> espoused:
> On Tuesday 04 March 2008 12:56 pm, [H]omer wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, in Gates's point of view India adopting Linux was
>>> *four* times worse than their health initiative against AIDS.
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/13/gates_gives_100m_to_fight/
>>
>> Good catch, and yes I remember that story well. It's disgusting - not so
>> much because of the bribery, but because Microsoft value their own greed
>> over human life. How sick.
>
> Exactly.....& who's to say that, behind the scenes, this kind of thing *still*
> happens.
>

I'm sure it goes on all the time, it's just that Microsoft are not very
good at keeping it quiet. There was another posting recently from one
of the Microsoft shilcosystem indicating that Microsoft are quite happy
to bribe in Africa and Asia "because that's how you do business there".
I'd not seen anyone admit to it so openly before, but there we go.

--
| 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 |