[odf-discuss] procedure at ISO Ballot Resolution Meeting

[Russell Ossendryver]

This is beyond my expertise but I was thinking It might be a good idea
to detail some of the comments and have them online. Prioritize them
in order: MS cannot comply, substantial changes required and on an
on...

On 9/12/07, Ian Lynch <ian.lynch at zmsl.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 20:20 -0700, marbux wrote:
>
> >
> > If the issue were about logic or credibility, every NB wuld have voted
> > no without comments and saved the bother of the Ballot Resolution
> > process. There are technical issues involved, but the process actually
> > employed to resolve issues is political rather than technical from
> > everything I can see, boiling down to a contest for votes.
>
> So it should be easy to discredit it. Anyone will be able to see it for
> what it is if the ground is prepared beforehand.
>
> > In most of the world, the process has no real government oversight
> > --despite the treaty requirement -- and is susceptible to the kind of
> > stuffing of the ballot box we have been watching. Most nations allow
> > private standardization bodies to form and submit positions on behalf
> > of the government without any government checks and balances, and
> > membership in the NBs tends to be biased by membership fees.
>
> Sounds like the makings of a good journalistic scandal. If that can find
> its way into the mainstream press it makes it very difficult to then
> confirm the corruption by actions on the day.
>
> > The only strong check on the process is the ability for a national
> > government to force issues in the WTO dispute resolution process. But
> > for the most part, the national governments are not even aware of what
> > is being done in their name by the NBs, which tend toward being
> > extremely biased by those with vested financial interests.
>
> S we need a scandal in the mainstream press. Perhaps something suitably
> spun to get their attention.
>
> > I've been thinking a lot about what might be done to reform the
> > system, but that's an essay I'll have to save for another day because
> > of my work schedule (I'm behind, up to my armpits.) I have no
> > comprehensive solution, although I'm leaning toward leaving the
> > existing standardization process behind and pushing for
> > community-developed standards, with developers and vendors excluded
> > from voting on market requirements to be fulfilled by the developers
> > and vendors. E.g., a hybrid system where government IT departments
> > rather than the vendors set the market requirements, exercising the
> > procurement power. What is happening right now in the European
> > Community with the PEGSCO report and the IDABC ODEF Workshop held in
> > Berlin this spring certainly move in that direction. I think the
> > danger there is that it might lead to big customer abuse in place of
> > big big vendor abuse.
>
> Simpler to just get the press involved and not worry about the logic and
> procedures. As you say it politics so that comes first and reform later.
>
> > There is an interesting 1998 academic paper by Ken Krechmer of the
> > Univesity of Colorado's International Center for Standards Research
> > that attempts to identify all of the interests that must be served by
> > an open standard.  < http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html>. Here's the
> > abstract:
> >
> > This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology
> > standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by
> > standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The
> > users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish
> > addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and
> > users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights
> > represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are
> > supported will standards be open to all.
> >
> >
> > It builds atop an earlier work by Bruce Perens and is worth the read
> > if you'd like a more analytic view of various interests in the
> > standard setting process and where the overlap exists. It's an
> > over-simplified model, of course, but good food for thought and
> > discussion.
>
> Useful background for Gold INGOT students but needs simplifying for that
> level.
>
> Ian
> --
> New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
> www.theINGOTs.org
>
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
> Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
> 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>