[odf-discuss] Private deal to approve OOXML? More evidence surfaces

[marbux]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:50 PM,  <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> There certainly are some weird things happening in SC34.
>

+1

> Second, the resolution starts off with the assertion : "SC 34 is the JTC 1
> designated maintenance body for ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML file
> formats)".   However merely stating it does not make it true.  Only JTC1 can
> designate a maintenance group for a Fast Track, and I have seen no JTC1
> discussion or vote on the matter.
>

I think this did happen. I remember writing something to someone when
the vote was scheduled. The issue was whether to assign maintenance to
Ecma or to SC 34. My immediate reaction was, "you can't rationally
decide to assign maintenance to Ecma when the AFNOR comments ---
calling for DIS-29500 to be diverted as a technical report while
harmonization and then convergence with ODF was done under the
supervision of JTC 1 --- have not been decided by the NBs." There was
a degree of public controversy over it, but I never heard the result
of the ballot. As I recall, that was about the time of my fried
motherboard madness and I assumed that I had just missed it.

> Note that moving ODF maintenance to SC34 is not possible under JTC1 rules.
> I'd be personally opposed to it.  JTC1 is far less open, far less
> transparent and offers far fewer IPR protections than OASIS does.  We'd be
> fools to move ODF into a dark room where they can kill it without leaving a
> mark.  I'll take my chances in the open.
>

There is language in JTC 1 Directives Annex I ("eye") that would seem
to authorize JTC 1 to take control of ODF if the goal is
interoperability, which harmonization would seem to fall under at
least as phrased in the new SC 34 resolution. It might not be labeled
as "maintenance," but were I inclined to do so, I think I could make a
good faith argument that the following language grants JTC 1 the
authority to take control of ODF. I.e., I think it's a rock that might
grow antlers, as a lawyer friend who was a hunting enthusiast used to
say.

"JTC 1 has the authority and responsibility to clarify whether
interoperability is intended to be facilitated by each JTC 1 standard
and ISP, **to what or whom the interoperability applies,** how
conformity is related to the provision of interoperability, and how to
verify that interoperability is provided between relevant IT systems.

<http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf>, pg. 145.

But in any event, playing by the rules doesn't seem to be a wildly
popular sport in many IT SDOs these days. If there be a rule, it seems
to be whatever folks can get away with. :-)

Best regards,

Paul