[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML Approval Vote Fails in INCITS]

[Christian Einfeldt]

Alright, this is great, right?  This means that OOXML has failed in a major
international standards body has rejected OOXML?


On 8/10/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: OOXML Approval Vote Fails in INCITS
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:40:02 -0400
> From: andrew.updegrove at gesmer.com
> To: andrew.updegrove at gesmer.com
>
> As I reported on July 23, INCITS, the US balloting body on the OOXML vote,
> put out a ballot to see whether the US should vote to approve OOXML, with
> the ballot to close on August 9 (see this blog entry:
>
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070723044713169
>   and my contemporaneous email alert to this list).
>
> That ballot has now closed on schedule, and that vote has failed, with 8
> in
> favor, 7 opposed, and one abstaining.  As noted in my prior post, a
> schedule had been pre-agreed upon that could accommodate a further vote of
> "no with comments."  I have no information at this time whether such a
> ballot has been issued or not.
>
> Here are the votes:
>
> Yes votes:  Apple, Department of Homeland Security, the Electronic
> Industries Alliance, EMC, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Microsoft and Sony
> Electronics.
> No votes:  Farance, Incorporated, GS1 US, IBM, Lexmark International,
> NIST,
> Oracle, and the Department of Defense.
> Abstention:  IEEE
>
> The overall vote is not, to me, a surprise.  Leaving all politics or
> opinions aside on whether OOXML should become an ISO/IEC standard when ODF
> already exists, I do not believe that OOXML is in good enough shape to
> recommend a yes vote, with or without comments.
>
> For further information and analysis, as well as a link to the INCITS site
> with votes and comments, see this blog entry:
>
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070810112044631
>
> As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this
> list.
>
> Andrew Updegrove
> Gesmer Updegrove LLP
> 40 Broad Street
> Boston, MA  02109
> v:  617/350-6800
> f:  617/350-6878
> http://www.gesmer.com
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org
> http://www.opensourcelegal.org
>
>
>
> *****************************************
> Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including
> any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any
> taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed
> on the taxpayer.  (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to
> U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
> Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA
> 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878.  This communication
> is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the
> addressee.  It may contain information which is privileged and/or
> confidential under applicable law.  If you are not the intended
> recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is
> strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at  (617) 350-6800 and
> notify the sender by electronic mail.  Please expunge this communication
> without making any copies.  Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>



-- 
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070810/953b0d89/attachment-0001.html