[odf-discuss] [OT] Australia's OOXML Vote?

[Yoon Kit Yong]

On 31/03/2008, Jeff Waugh <jdub at bethesignal.org> wrote:
>
> Oh well, not so much:
>
>
> http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/03/31/australia-fails-to-take-a-position-on-ooxml/


Jeff, I was reading the reasons for Standards Australia to make an
Abstention,
and was surprised to read this:

http://www.standards.org.au/downloads/080331_Aust_maintains_abstain_position_on_OOXML.pdf

"Other reasons to maintain the abstain position include:
   • Due to its length (6,000 pages) and complexity no full analysis of the
implication of OOXML
        has been undertaken by relevant agencies;
   • Standards Australia is not satisfied that the ISO/IEC fast track
process is suitable for a
        proposal as large, complex and commercially sensitive; and
   • The recent BRM only addressed a small number of the issues raised by
various member
        countries. Standards Australia doesn't believe sufficient progress
was made to change
        its vote."

1) Doesnt the "reasons" justify a Disapproval stance? (And not Abstention?)
2) The third reason states that tandards Australia doesn't believe
sufficient progress was made to change its vote" - Does this imply that the
insufficient progress means that prior position was a Disagree?

I am very confused after reading that press release.

Perhaps your team could seek clarification from SA?

Thanks

yk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080331/10307bb1/attachment.html