Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Open Letter to ISO Calls For Standardization of Process

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Sep 07, 2007 09:47 AM
from the corruption-arms-race dept.
In a recent open letter to the ISO FreeCode CEO Geir Isene calls for standardization in the processes used by the ISO to help prevent future OOXML blunders. "It seems ISO is not prepared for a politicized process where a big and influential commercial enterprise will use any means possible to push its own standard through to certification. Committees are flooded by the vendor in support of the standard. Votes are bought and results are hijacked. Several national bodies have flawed and skewed procedures open for corruption."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] OOXML Won't Get Fast-Track ISO Standardization 165 comments
realdodgeman writes "The International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) recently held an internal poll to determine the position that the United States should take on Microsoft's request for Office Open XML (OOXML) approval. With eight votes in favor, seven against, and one abstention, the group was one vote short of the nine votes required for approving OOXLM ISO standardization. This will mean a huge slowdown to the standardization to the OOXML format. 'Given the controversial nature, relative complexity, and significant importance of the standard, the results of INCIT's vote is unsurprising. An INCITS technical committee also voted against fast-track OOXML approval last month prior to the executive board's vote. Further deliberation is clearly needed as well as further refinement of the format. It seems as though many of the organizations participating in the approval process are generally supportive of the standard itself, but are unwilling to voice unconditional support until their concerns are resolved. OOXML may be down, but it's certainly not out.'"
[+] IT: Microsoft Bought Sweden's ISO Vote on OOXML? 340 comments
a_n_d_e_r_s writes "The vote on OOXML looked fairly secured. Most in the Working Group in Sweden was against the vote to approve OOXML. The day of the vote, though, more companies showed up at the door. Some 20 new companies — each one payed about $2500 to be allowed to vote — and vote they did ... for Microsoft. Most of the new companies were partners from Microsoft who suddenly out of the blue joined the Working Group, payed membership fees and voted yes for approval. From the OS2World story: 'The final result was 25 Yes, 6 No and 3 Abs and this would from the start be a done deal of saying No! Jonas Bosson who participated in today's meeting on behalf on FFII said that he left the meeting in protest and so did also IBM's Swedish local representative Johan Westman.'"
[+] IT: ISO Says No To Microsoft's OOXML Standard 315 comments
qcomp writes "The votes are in and Microsoft has lost for now, reports the FFII's campaign website OOXML. The 2/3 majority needed to proceed with the fast-track standardization has not been achieved. Now the standard will head to the ballot resolution meeting to address the hundreds of technical comments submitted along with the votes." Here is yesterday's speculation as to how the vote would turn out.
Submission: An Open Letter to ISO by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • IEEE as well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday September 07 2007, @09:52AM (#20507769)
    Can't remember the details, but within the past few years a committee working on an IEEE standard caused so many complaints that IEEE disbanded the committee and started the process all over. It was also a case of suspected corporate tampering.
    • Re:IEEE as well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xiaran (836924) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:06AM (#20507977)
      I have some second hand direct experience with ISO standardization as, when I was growing up my father was a member of several ISO committees. One was for example the X.500 standard. Hes told me many stories that would lead me to assure people that if they think hard core politics and vendor vested interests don't go on in ISO they are sadly, sadly mistaken. This kind of microsoft OOXML thing is really nothing that new. Its just been rather public. In true ISO style, what will now happen I think is they will now argue about it for the next 25 years. A final spec will come out and be ignored by everyone.
    • an IEEE standard caused so many complaints that IEEE disbanded the committee and started the process all over.

      Were you thinking of this?
      http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=9E6 A38B9-89B6-4C28-BD7D-B117D22E7C6D [cbronline.com]

      China accuses IEEE of wireless standards conspiracy

      In its appeal, China has asked the ISO to investigate 'whether the ethical and procedural rules and principals have indeed been violated and whether the ballots have been unfairly influenced by those ethical and procedural violations,' according to the report in the Xinhua media agency.

  • by advocate_one (662832) on Friday September 07 2007, @09:55AM (#20507811)
    for them to follow when creating a standard... the existing procedure is a massive hodge-podge of sub-committees and other groups which do not appear to be following a standard procedure for making their decisions...
  • by Spazmania (174582) on Friday September 07 2007, @09:55AM (#20507813) Homepage
    When I hear someone seriously propose standardizing the standardization process my first thought is that the level of bureaucracy has reached a point where its time to run for the hills. Thanks to prior standardization efforts I should still be reachable by cell...
  • by sapphire wyvern (1153271) on Friday September 07 2007, @09:56AM (#20507831)
    how will they run the process for standardizing their standardization process without a standard process for processing standardization? Argh, my head....
    • Are you sure you want to jump right into processing standardization with out a preliminary informal sit-down? Run a memo among your peers and see if you can leverage any useful synergies first. Then create an executive summary for review.
  • by Otter (3800) on Friday September 07 2007, @09:57AM (#20507841) Journal
    It seems ISO is not prepared for a politicized process where a big and influential commercial enterprise will use any means possible to push its own standard through to certification.

    Whatever the merit of his suggestions, the idea that ISO is new to high-pressure corporate gamesmanship and requires a condescending lecture from a titan of industry like "the CEO of Freecode" has to qualify as the laugh of the day.

    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:17AM (#20508121)

      Whatever the merit of his suggestions, the idea that ISO is new to high-pressure corporate gamesmanship and requires a condescending lecture from a titan of industry like "the CEO of Freecode" has to qualify as the laugh of the day.
      OTOH, it seems obvious that they need a scolding from somebody.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Whatever the merit of his suggestions, the idea that ISO is new to high-pressure corporate gamesmanship and requires a condescending lecture from a titan of industry like "the CEO of Freecode" has to qualify as the laugh of the day.

      After Web 2.0; discussions on forums like Slashdot, Digg etc. have shown that they can be a powerful influence on individuals, companies and public entities. The recent admission by the Vista technical team of a design flaw that throttles network performance when playing audio
    • Whatever the merit of his suggestions, the idea that ISO is new to high-pressure corporate gamesmanship and requires a condescending lecture from a titan of industry like "the CEO of Freecode" has to qualify as the laugh of the day.

      Hmmm... I always wanted to give a piece of my mind to NASA, every time they screw up, I thought "even *I* can handle fireworks twice each year, what's so god damn complex".

      You know what, I'm gonna send them an open letter.

      - CEO of my mom's basement.
      • "we"? What's your position in ISO?
      • Alright, I guess we should sit back and wait until Microsoft decides to clean up the ISO. Brilliant, sir. You are very, very well informed and surely not just some nay saying Slashdot cynic.

        Man, that went right over your head. The parent isn't saying we should sit around, and isn't even criticizing Freecode's "CEO". It's saying that ISO is perfectly at home with political pressure, not exactly a virgin in the field, and Freecode's "CEO" doesn't carry a lot of weight anyway, not exactly being a "heavy hitte

        • And the ISO is probably flush with cash in a lot of new places from all the new members. That, in and of itself, should be enough for anyone.
  • by AtariDatacenter (31657) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:00AM (#20507893) Homepage
    Keep the process non-standardized. Make it organic and not a mechanical process. It is much easier to prevent an organic process from being gamed in that manner. If it was standardized, then there wouldn't be as good of an opportunity to reject obvious manipulations.
    • Wasn't Microsoft's current dominance of the market an organic process at the beginning? Do you really want that again? I would think that your suggestion would create another monoculture.
    • "Organic"? Can't we just leverage our synergies instead?

      It is much easier to prevent an organic process from being gamed in that manner.

      And when Microsoft can purchase votes at will, who is it, precisely, that you think would prevent it from being gamed? Some meta-level of benign dictators who can ignore the votes of the membership when they feel like it? Is that OK, as long as it's "organic"?

      • ATTEMPTS is the key word, is it not? The corrupted vote is null and void, and now Microsoft will have every action on that standard scrutinized heavily. So I don't really see what good adding an ungodly layer of bureaucracy will do. Standards take quite a while to move from proposal to final spec, there is ample process.

        Do people really think they're all in there just winging it? There are already many rules, processes, procedures, etc. I don't even know what it means to "standardize the standardizatio

        • ATTEMPTS is the key word, is it not? The corrupted vote is null and void,

          You're referring to the situation in Sweden, right? There's a lot more suspicious going on than just that one incident.

          12 new countries joined the ISO OOXML committee this year. 10 of those voted yes.

          Lots of new participants in the national standards boards. Most of which contributed little to the national reviews of the proposed standard and voted 'yes with no comments'.

          I'll not claim outright fraud on MS' part, but if the 'if it quac
  • They need to develop standards for standardizing their decision process for developing standards.

    It shouldn't be a big deal... it's a fairly standard problem.
  • by jkrise (535370) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:14AM (#20508079) Journal
    If true International consensus is to be achieved, then the criteria for adopting a submission as standard must be altered. The present criteria state:

    1. Over 67% of P-grade members to vote Yes.
    2. Less than 25% overall members could vote No.

    The scope for abuse wiht the above criteria exists because 'countries' like Khazakstan, Cote' de Ivorie and Cyprus have equal voting rights; and can become P-members as well. So, the ISO could consider modifying the voting requirements on the lines of the Senate / House pattern:

    1. The over 67% P-grade members criterion to be amended as "Positive votes corresponding to over 67% of the total population represented". Populous natins like India, China, the UK, Brazil have all voted No. The present ISO rules allow this popular opinion to be sidelined.

    2. Secondly, lots of new 'countries' have opted for voting and P-status. None of these have participated or voted in any other sphere of the ISO actvities. This points strongly to financial inducements and corruption, and cannot be dismissed as coincidence. The rules must be altered before the BRM in February.

    3. Thirdly, Microsoft has admitted to wrong-doing in the voting process in Sweden. This alone ought to be sufficient for the ISO to null and void the entire submission, and debar said firm for a minimum period. There is no credibility if rules are blindly applied, when benefitting parties themselves are guilty of subversion. This is similar to the submission of licenses to the OSI - the standards bodies must take into account past conduct and sincerity; not just rule on technicalities.

    4. Fourthly, the "Yes, with comments" option must be removed. This is meaningless, and mischevous. What incentive does a vested interest have in listening to these comments, and redressing the grievances?

    5. The ISO must take a clear stance wrt patents. Any patent-encumbered submission must be rejected until:
    a. The submission is amended so as to be patent-free
    b. The patents in question have expired all over the world.

    More later.
    • Borat? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027) <slash2006@@@pineight...com> on Friday September 07 2007, @10:32AM (#20508331) Homepage Journal

      The scope for abuse wiht the above criteria exists because 'countries' like Khazakstan, Cote' de Ivorie and Cyprus have equal voting rights
      Why is this the case, when Côte d'Ivoire and Cyprus are run by little girls [google.com]?

      The over 67% P-grade members criterion to be amended as "Positive votes corresponding to over 67% of the total population represented". Populous natins like India, China, the UK, Brazil have all voted No.
      Wouldn't that just give China a plain old veto power? Perhaps we need both a House and a Senate.

      The ISO must take a clear stance wrt patents. Any patent-encumbered submission must be rejected until:
      a. The submission is amended so as to be patent-free
      b. The patents in question have expired all over the world.
      ISO already does take the beginning of a clear stance: all essential patents must be licensed on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms [64.233.167.104]. But I agree that "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" have not been applied consistently with the goals of free software or open source.
    • by jbeaupre (752124) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:41AM (#20508497)
      I'm not sure you can develop a completely fair apportionment of votes. There will always be weird scenarios.

      By population: Should Nigeria have more say than France on nuclear standards?

      By economic power: Should the US have more say on kimchi than Korea? (yeah, I'm stretching there, but hopefully you get the point.)

      By ISO membership: well, you're looking at the effect of that.

      And so on.

      It might just be a matter of selecting the least worst.
    • 1. The over 67% P-grade members criterion to be amended as "Positive votes corresponding to over 67% of the total population represented". Populous natins like India, China, the UK, Brazil have all voted No. The present ISO rules allow this popular opinion to be sidelined.

      I, for one, welcome our new standardized Mandarin overlords.

      • I, for one, welcome our new standardized Mandarin overlords.

        Please note that even if China, India and Brazil voted together, they would be well short of 67%.
  • by stranger_to_himself (1132241) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:19AM (#20508137) Journal

    I don't think standardisation will help. On the contrary, a rigid well documented standardised procedure for approvals will make it far easier for a large corporation to understand the process and exploit or subvert it, with ISO then stuck in its own standards.

    What's more important is transparency, that each member documents exactly the process by which it reached a particular decision, and that decisions within each member of ISO, not necessarily across members, are roughly consistent.

    • Very good point.

      We don't necessarily need each country to standardize to what another country is doing. That might not fit with their culture. But if the process, whatever it is, was transparent, then we could minimize corruption.

  • "It seems ISO is not prepared for a politicized process where a big and influential commercial enterprise will use any means possible to push its own standard through to certification. Committees are flooded by the vendor in support of the standard. Votes are bought and results are hijacked. Several national bodies have flawed and skewed procedures open for corruption." --FreeCode CEO Geir Isene

    How old is this CEO - 13? He sounds like a whiny little whatever.

    In any case, he's late to the party. Vendors ha

    • by foobsr (693224) * on Friday September 07 2007, @10:49AM (#20508707) Homepage Journal
      How old is this CEO - 13? He sounds like a whiny little whatever.

      More like 31.

      Quote [isene.com]:"On the professional side: After 10 years as the CEO of the recruitment company U-MAN Norge AS, I moved on and started my own consulting company Creo Pario AS. I then started working for the leading Norwegian Linux company Linpro AS. From March 2003 till March 2004 I was the CEO. In the summer of 2004 I started my own company - FreeCode It is fully dedicated to free software. As of February 2006, we are 15 people and expanding quickly.

      On the private side: I was born in Oslo, Norway in 1966. I have been a scientologist since 1984 (see my rather out-dated scientology home page). I am spiritual rather than materialistic. I believe in the good in people and that everyone can reach their potential. I believe that giving is more important than receiving and that being productive toward a constructive goal is what make people happy." (emphasis mine)

      Any further comment — except this one — seems void.

      CC.
  • Buyout? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tribbin (565963) on Friday September 07 2007, @10:24AM (#20508199) Homepage
    Will Microsoft pay companies to vote against the ISO for standardization of ISO's?
  • by Vexorian (959249) on Friday September 07 2007, @11:17AM (#20509295)
    1. make a country
    2. Join ISO as a coting member
    3. Say you will vote No with comments
    4. ???
    5. profit
  • Oversite Panel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Friday September 07 2007, @11:19AM (#20509327)

    All that is required is a oversite panel. At the first hint of something not exactly right the panel would have the athority to halt the proess and investigate the problem.

    This coupled with the requirment of P contries to be active participents within the ISO would also go along way to preventing this method of abuse.

    In addition say you have to be an active observer for 2 years before applying for P status or something like that and in order to maintain your P status you have to be an ongoing active participent in n% of the processes up for discussion.

  • From a developer point of view I'll parse any XML. If said corruption wins the day I'll being parse Microsoft Open XML with XML parsers otherwise I'll parse OpenDocument XML format with same XML parsers.

    Hell, I'll even parse both formats or convert one into another with same XML parsers.
    • Your observation makes as much sense as saying that there is no point in standarizing document formats because in the end every format is reduced to bits, and those are already standard.
  • Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheLink (130905) on Friday September 07 2007, @11:50AM (#20509985) Journal
    All that crap happens all the time nowadays.

    It's just the usual Microsoft doing "version 1.0" of "Influencing Standards Bodies" really badly. Wait till their 4th or 5th try at it. ;)

    Hardly anyone making new standards is really interested in the good of the industry much less the world.

    In the past the geeks made TCP/IP etc because it was just a bunch of geeks who wanted to get things to _work_ and get stuff done.

    Nowadays, it's "How can we influence the standard so we can get an advantage".

    If someone actually comes up with a decent standard the competitors will just try to come up with something different.

    Lots of crap standards nowadays - look at WiFi - they could have taken a leaf from SSL, and had a standard that allowed _secure_anonymous_ connections, but instead you get the huge mess that's WiFi- where it's easy to be open and insecure, and difficult to be secure.

    Look at the upcoming HTML standards, all "throttles" and no "brakes", nobody _really_ cares about security. They just tell people to "please drive safely, and you should stay in your lane and not crash please raise a security exception instead", but do they really lift a finger to help?

    AMD come up with Hyper Transport? No way is Intel going to support it.

    And then there's RDRAM and the whole bunch of people trying to get their patents into standards.
  • Bribery, in any form, is counter to a constructive global economy. Allow no closed ISO Standards. That way, if some FUBAR'red ISO standard is allowed to exist; It can be ignored by the rest of us. As a side benefit, it would allow Darwinian Socialism to occur to rich fools.