van den Beld Post & Participation - Open XML continued
The complaints keep rolling in on Groklaw about the outcome from Open XML. ***UPDATE #2: I went out to dinner and have been thinking a great deal about this. I do hold an opinion on this, but I think it is reasonable that people who read my blog expect me to be careful with my assertions. For that reason, I retract this statement.***Strange that a website setup by IBM to fight a proxy war during the SCO case would be so focused on the Open XML discussion today. But that is for another day. ***UPDATE: Concern has been raised in the comments of this blog about my assertion of Groklaw and its contents. My assertion in the preeceeding paragraph is my opinion - take it or leave it a face value please.***
It may be that the disagreement of opinions following the approval of Open XML has exceeded what was happening during the process. The one thing that I have noticed from the anti-Open XML camp is a myopia when it comes to facts. It's amazing to me the capacity to put up blinders to facts that skew the picture away from their world view. ***Update. In thinking about this paragraph I think it is worth noting that Microsoft (as with any organization) should take to heart concerns raised about Open XML so that our engagement in international standardization work continuously improves.***
In light of those blinders, it is worth your time to look at a blog post from Jan van den Beld. It is an educational post. If you don't know who he is, he was Secretary General of Ecma for many years and a long-time participant in ISO/IEC business. In fact, he was there at the start of JTC 1 and has been such a good participant that the latest version of the JTC 1 directives are dedicated to him personally.
Participation:
This brings me to my thought of the day. One of the most often raised accusations of the community who was in favor of Open XML was that they were "stuffing committees." There are a number of things that come to mind when I read these accusations.
Participation is a good thing - it is a very positive word and concept. Furthermore, it is an important part of the standards world.
Yet in the case of Open XML, it seems that participation by those in favor of Open XML only happened through pernicious activities and breeched ethics - while participation against Open XML was purity and light personified. I just don't get that.
In Norway when IBM and Google join the committee 2 days before the final vote...or when IBM brings a subsidiary company to the table with them in Italy effectively giving one company 2 votes...or when Oracle and Red Hat join the US V1 committee just before it votes....that is participation, right? I actually believe that to be true. It is no different than Microsoft or its business partners coming to the table to have their voices be heard in the process. As long as the participation is within the context of the rules for a given NB, then it is legitimate participation.
It would be nice if people would get off their high-horses on this particular issue, because the only position ANYONE should be taking is one in favor of participation. I would certainly be surprised to hear that anyone thinks participation should only be limited to those who agree with you. That would be an indefensible position to take.
Comments
Anonymous
April 04, 2008
"In light of those blinders, it is worth your time to look at a blog post from Jan van den Beld. It is an educational post. If you don't know who he is, he was Secretary General of Ecma" wow !! sorry man, i didn't know it... please forgive us, your draft ( OOXML ) is wonderful Now we are friends?Anonymous
April 04, 2008
If you have real evidence that IBM is behind groklaw anti-ooxml drive please provide proof. Otherwise, I must say I am disappointed that you decided to allow yourself to sank into spreading outright lies this time.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
Jason, By extension from what you say, I must be in IBM's pay as well, or why would I spend so much of my time writing about ODF? I have on rare occasions received comments on Rambus stock sites (I have filed several pro bono amicus briefs in that case) implying that I must be in someone's pocket, which I have always thought displayed far more about the ethics of the people who left them than my own, and hence my comment about this being a disservice to yourself. I have regularly disclosed my affiliations with OASIS and the Linux Foundation, and they are frequently mentioned by the journalists that quote me (and to whom I always disclose them), who also usually identify me with a phrase such as "ODF advocate." In fact, on a dollar basis OASIS is one of my smallest clients. My opinions, in fact, actually are my own. And it is a real privilege, as the owner of my own business, to have the freedom to say what I believe, to spend my time as I wish, to campaign for what I think matters, and not to owe or have my advocacy for sale to anyone. I would say that, as between you and me, I have far greater ability to blog "as myself" than do you. As to financial impact: I expect that I have lost more business than I have gained by identifying myself so strongly with a controversial cause that I believe in. I can assure you that if I had a year end bonus, it would by no means be impacted by the success or failure of open document standards. AndyAnonymous
April 04, 2008
Well, people write whole operating systems in their spare time. Some even have commercial success with them and challenge the established players. These things happen, welcome to the new world. If a paralegal decides to do legal work for free, who are you to attribute that work to IBM? You started your blog post with a blatantly false premise, and you got called on it. People usually stop reading after encountering a certain amount of b*ll. You have nobody to blame but yourself for that. I'm not exactly a fan of PJ (e.g. she censors her site very aggressively), but calling her an IBM shill is just ridiculous.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
Fair enough Andy. I think that many of the individuals involved in the debates have a commercial interest - thus their particular attention to the discussion. I don't have a problem with that. I think we both agree that disclosure is important. When I go to your blog (which I read regularly because I think you are very bright and have meaningful things to say - even when I disagree.) I don't see a prominent disclosure. That is a choice you make. As for the relative size of OASIS as a client - I'm not sure that it is relevant. In the end, I did not mean for my comment to precipitate this level of discussion - though it clealry has merit on its own. I will say that I don't like the "anonymous" posts where people then lay out an argument that absolutely slams someone. I choose to always note my name and affiliation and/or blog location when I comment elsewhere. Anyway - there are bigger issues out there. Thx for the comments. JasonAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
Frank - I'm not sure about the "actions" you are talking about. I have posted my take on Groklaw...not really sure that this is more than that. Thx JasonAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
"Yet in the case of Open XML, it seems that participation by those in favor of Open XML only happened through pernicious activities and breeched ethics - while participation against Open XML was purity and light personified. I just don't get that." Try harder or ask independent persons. Yes it was. No one likes to take a destructive role. You should read the Canadian comment which explains the underlying motivations very well. It makes a difference if members join a committee to work on the issue or join a committee just to vote.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 05, 2008
Jason: I'm looking forward to seeing MS-ISO approve all Microsoft products as standards. After that, MS-ISO will repeal all non-Microsoft software standards.Anonymous
April 05, 2008
I'm glad that you have the courage to retract the groklaw accusation. The fact that you decided to strike the statement rather than just delete them shows that you are not afraid of admiting mistake, which is more than most of us will do. Please don't let yourself slip again.Anonymous
April 05, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 05, 2008
Yes, by all means, lets focus on participation. That is,after all, the easiest to spin. IBM brought an affiliate with them TWO DAYS before the deadline! OMG! Lets not mention that Microsoft had been paying partners to join for only a few weeks at that point... And above all, lets not talk about suitability of OOXML to be a standard in the first place, much less on the fast track. Lets not discuss wrapping proprietary and still not fully disclosed binary formats in an XML wrapper and calling it a new format. Lets not even think about mentioning patent traps, instead lets just refer all questions to the carefully worded OSP that excludes any commercial implementation by any real competition, and refers anyone who questions it to 'talk to your lawyer'. We'll also not talk about the sudden flurry of 'independent' analysts talking up the 'overwhelming' support for this 'widely implemented format' (er, name even one actual implementation... well?), and how 'market based standards' improve innovation. Funny, why are they all using the exact same words? Words that all originated as talking points in Microsoft press releases? Pure coincidence, I'm sure...Anonymous
April 05, 2008
"I know, it may be very cynical...but there it is." It is cynical, but unfortunately cynicism is not a substitute for evidence.Anonymous
April 06, 2008
Let's get some perspective here guys (and girls). If Rob Weir had made a similar faux-pas, you'd never see the correction, because all negative comments are censored on his blog. It's only because this blog is open to all that you are allowed to correct things.Anonymous
April 06, 2008
Ian Easson - agreed on Weir's blog. But I expect better from Microsoft.Anonymous
April 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 07, 2008
Btw, Andy as you are here does the Linux foundation sponsor any anti-OOXML organisations/sites ? I seem to remember that a predecessor of the linux foundation, the osdl, was mentioned to sponsor groklaw for instance.Anonymous
April 08, 2008
hAl, The Linux Foundation sponsors no such sites (or any sites, other than pages accessible from the Linux Foundation site, such as FOSSBazaar). I list the the first several paragraphs of many of my Standards Blog pieces at the LF blogs, with a link back to the Standards Blog for the balance. So to that extent, the LF has an informal relationship to my site. - AndyAnonymous
April 08, 2008
hAl, you are a boring troll. Please stop posting about IBM in all the blogs discussing OOXML. Get a life, man.