Slashdot Log In
Norwegian Standards Body Members Resign Over OOXML
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:04 PM
from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.
from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.
tsa writes "Ars Technica reports that 13 of the 23 members from the technical committee of the Norwegian standards body, the organization that manages technical standards for the country, have resigned because of the way the OOXML standardization was handled. We've previously discussed Norway's protest and ISO's rejection of other appeals. From the article: 'The standardization process for Microsoft's office format has been plagued with controversy. Critics have challenged the validity of its ISO approval and allege that procedural irregularities and outright misconduct marred the voting process in national standards bodies around the world. Norway has faced particularly close scrutiny because the country reversed its vote against approval despite strong opposition to the format by a majority of the members who participated in the technical committee.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Norway's Yes-To-OOXML Is Formally Protested 324 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Norway's yes-to-OOXML may tip the vote in favor of accepting it as an ISO-standard, but the committee chairman just faxed a formal protest to the ISO. 'I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. I wish to inform you of serious irregularities in connection with the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML) and to lodge a formal protest. You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway's vote from No with comments to Yes.'"
[+]
IT: ISO Rejects OOXML Protest Appeals 258 comments
snydeq writes "ISO and IEC gave OOXML the greenlight after organization leaders rejected appeals from four countries to protest the vote that approved OOXML as a standard. According to an ISO press statement, appeals by the national bodies of Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela did not garner support from two-thirds of the members of the ISO Technical Management Board and IEC Standardization Management Board, which is required by ISO/IEC rules to keep the appeals process alive."
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Take this job and shove it dept. ??? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it was the 'Take this chair and throw it' department? What gives?
Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
My first thought was "It's good that these people are taking a stand against injustice.", but my second thought was "These principled people just resigned. Norway's board is entirely corrupt now." Bummer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen Norwegian TV news? It goes from one scandal to the next. There's always someone stealing big chunks of money in one way or another.
Of course the magnitude is smaller because they have far less people, but they're far from corruption free.
Transparency helps, but there's not much you can do if you can't kick the crooks out easily. Plus, who are you going to replace them with? Honest people don't like government work very much.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree.
There are much scandals because of transparency.
Opposed to other countries where everything happens under the hood.
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
"Plus, who are you going to replace them with? Honest people don't like government work very much."
That is one of the more profound statements I have encountered here (on slashdot) about politics for quite s while!
I hope some moderators are here and share some '+insightful' love with you.
That is the situation with the upcoming Presidential elections here in the USA.
It seems to be a choice between a turd sandwich, or a shit casserole.
Does it really matter at this point? You already know it will taste like crap!
I guess all you can do is vote as you think is best, and hope it will work out.
Another option would be a revolution, and overthrow of the existing government.
This has not worked out well in the past, as the incoming 'party/gov't.' has not planned much farther ahead than getting 'there'.
I, for one, do not have the answers to the questions that have/can/will come about...just more questions.
Parent
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
You miss the point.
Norwegians still have a concept in their culture of a "scandal" that isn't just juicy, salacious news.
Parent
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
didn't IBM also resign from ISO over OOXML? i think this form of passive protest is important as it draws attention to the corruption at hand. if nothing else, it's garnered media attention and highlighted how serious an issue this is.
i think all principled members of ISO need to show solidarity and resign together. a mass exodus from the organization would force the industry to stop ignoring the issue. it says to governments and companies who care about standardization that ISO is no longer a legitimate vendor-neutral standardization body.
the next step would be for IBM, the Norwegian technical committee members, and other parties serious about standardization, to form a new organization for promoting international standards--and to make reforms to safeguard against an incident like this from happening within the new standards body.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I thought there already existed safeguards within the ISO/IEC framework, but that they basically were sidestepped. Whats to stop a new organization from doing it again?
Re: (Score:2)
It could also pave the way to setting up an alternative standards body for file formats.
Re: (Score:2)
the correct next step is for the ISO to cop on, and realize that, like other supernational bodies (eg ICANN), it can only be effective (and hence exist) if it is seen as incorruptible and representing the best interest of those involved in an industry and their clients.
While a new organization will clearly be more effective than the ISO in its current state, it is really should be a last resort option.
That said, maybe the ISO model just isn't the right one for the software industry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i understand what you're saying, but if their membership still does not allow them to overturn such an obvious case of commercially motivated corruption/corporate strong-arming tactics, then they really don't have much of a say anyway--at least not in any meaningful sense.
basically, this incident shows that ISO is up for sale. if you can afford to purchase the votes, then you can have whatever you want become an ISO standard. this not only makes ISO standards meaningless, but it also demonstrates that ISO d
It will help... (Score:3, Interesting)
...if (and only if) those principled individuals set up a rival standards organization, have as part of their charter that they refute corruption and automatically negate standards tainted by corruption, re-certify where legal all known-to-be-"safe" standards under their own name, and then lobby research shops and companies hurt by the ISO scandal to work with them. Fork the certification market, but because of rebranding existing standards, no other standards body would ever need to be involved.
Another alt
Re:It will help... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary. Good people remaining in the service of a bad organisation only adds to that organisation's strength. Walking away takes from the strength of that organisation. These people tried to redeem the organisation - they protested, they appealed and they went public. The organisation did not reverse its actions. To remain is to continue to lend support to its actions, to walk away is to diminish its authority. Whilst it could in theory help if they set up an alternate standards agency, these are merely people from a national group. Unless they started organising with other protestors from around the World, they can't set up anything to rival ISO. But they don't actually need to. Standards emerge and get organised without the aid of ISO. In fact, ISO often merely turns up and codifies such standards. Weaken ISO and where there is a need, other parties will start to fill in the gap in authority. I don't think you can ask more of these people than they have already given up. I assume there's a paycheck they have renounced somewhere in this, as well a privileged position.
I have full respect for their actions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have achieved something (Score:5, Insightful)
When principled people withdraw from an endeavor, they take with them the credibility they leant to it. The credibility of principled participants is all a standards body has to offer.
They are by their action hastening a day when a new, credible standards body can displace the corrupt corpse of ISO.
Good on 'em.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably impossible to get you and twitter to take your battles elsewhere, but could you at least try to keep it down a bit? Ignore the stuff already at -1 or 0.
Microsoft at its best (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft seems to want to to take over ODF too.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080825162905645 [groklaw.net]
Apparently they are not happy there is a working specification in the wild. It being a standard must hurt even more.
Form a new standards body (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a good time to start a new standards body with a new goal.
How soon people forget ... (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
Actually, you can only read part of the resolutions passed by this stacked committee. As usual, there are deep secrets that the public can't access. That's just one part of what's wrong with those people and why ODF must never fall into their secretive clutches. If it does, I have little doubt that ODF will end up brain dead, on life support, turning blue for lack of oxygen, and then suddenly, sadly, we'll find it dead as a doornail.
This was the same state Unix was in around the early 1990s. We're not dead yet! In fact, we've taken over the large computer market since then.
ISO has lost its street cred so expect an Open Source replacement. Open Standards benefit everyone, so I expect someone to fill in the gap.
Re:How soon people forget ... (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem. Linux Is Not UniX. Linux owns the big iron these days, holding over 85% [top500.org] of the Top500 [top500.org]. It's pretty dominant on the small end too, with home routers and file servers being the extreme of that bracket. The middle is getting squeezed out as thin-is-in netbooks and nettops push into the mainstream.
Unix was never open source until Open Solaris (the provenance of which is still subject to vigorous debate).
But of course you knew that. I was a Unix admin in 1984. At the time it was the stuff. Unfortunately because it was born before the age of software as property it wasn't designed to be protected from the greatest threat progress has ever faced: intellectual property lawyers. Linux was.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unix was never open source until Open Solaris
BSD isn't Unix?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, BSD is not Unix [opengroup.org]. To say that BSD is Unix is perhaps like saying that grass is rice. That's not quite correct. Some grasses are rice. Some grasses are differently purposed and differently used. They may share some genetic material but a putting green is not a bowl of cereal.
However, all rices are grasses. All of the currently used Unixes owe the vast majority of their genetic material to the University of California at San Diego and Berkeley. It would be fair to say that modern Unixes are all Be
Re:How soon people forget ... (Score:4, Informative)
This is true now, but not in a historical context. After the AT&T lawsuit, AT&T UNIX was found to contain BSD code, and BSD was found to contain only a few headers from AT&T, which were subsequently replaced. The subsequent 4BSD releases were both UNIX and open source. The assignment of the UNIX trademark to the Open Group happened much later, and it wasn't until 1993 that the UNIX93 specification was released, which redefined what UNIX meant. Oh, and The Open Group didn't buy the name, it was given to them by the Open Software Foundation, who were given it by AT&T.
Before 1993, UNIX meant 'a descendent of AT&T UNIX, source compatible with with programs written for this operating system.' After 1993, it meant 'an operating system conforming to the UNIX93 specification and certified as conforming by The Open Software Foundation.'[1] Note that neither of these is a subset of the other. A Linux distribution[2] could be certified as SUS conforming and then it would be UNIX (according to the post-1993) definition, but it would not be according to the pre-1998 definition. All BSD systems are UNIX according to the pre-1993 definition, but only OS X 10.5 on Intel[3] is UNIX according to the newer definition.
[1] After 1998, it meant 'an operating system conforming to the Single UNIX Specification and certified as conforming by The Open Group.' It was redefined in 1995, 1998, and 2003, and so some systems in each of these years went from being UNIX to being not-UNIX, due to increasing demands by the standards.
[2] The Single UNIX Specification covers a load of userspace utilities, including the C compiler and shell, and defined the functions the C standard library must implement, so Linux alone can never be SUS certified. A minimal GNU/Linux system conforming to SUS would have around an order of magnitude more GNU code than Linux code. A BSD/LLVM/Linux system could also, potentially, be certified, or one containing userland stuff taken from OpenSolaris or even something like Minix.
[3] Certification is per version and per platform. As such, Solaris is usually not UNIX - only the major releases are certified and some are only certified on SPARC, not on x86. Note that the other versions are still able to pass the tests, it's just that no one wanted to spend money getting them certified.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, GNU's not Unix.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But of course you knew that.
Of course. But what that comment referred to was the lawsuit that effectively ended Unix' chances at the time, but spurred all the BSD spinoffs and later Linux. Maybe I had the year wrong, that was during the time I took a sabbatical from Unix hacking to pursue professional bowling.
I was a Unix admin in 1984. At the time it was the stuff.
Ah. Right on and yes, Unix was very much the cutting edge then.
Now that I think about it, I'm at the tipping point. I started with Unix in late 1981, Linux in late 1995 and I have very nearly spent more time with Linux than U
Re:How soon people forget ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I took a hiatus too. I didn't miss the show - I was just sidelined playing with stuff I knew was good. It didn't take me more than three months of Windows development to figure out that it was a trap. The last month of that I spent looking for specifications for a sound card so I could do audio capture before I discovered that the company that wrote the drivers for SoundBlaster was actually a wholly owned Microsoft subsidiary that wasn't giving up the specs at any price or terms I could live with.
OS X bought [opengroup.org] Unix certification because it was an important selling point. They had to do significant engineering to qualify for the mark, but they have it not in recognition of their engineering, but because they licensed the right to call OS X a Unix from The Open Group.
Unix is not what it was in the 1960s and 1970s - the love child of great minds. It's now just a service mark. A brand. Intellectual property law ruined it, and Ransom Love killed it with his hubris. It's time to let it go.
Parent
The Inquirer story has a translation (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/10/02/norway-standards-members-walk [theinquirer.net]
I was shocked by how excellent the "rough Google translation" was. Unless they had a human clean up the translation a bit, that is amazingly good English prose for a machine translator to emit. (I can't speak for how accurate it is, but it seems plausible enough.)
English is a mess, with lots of irregular usages. How about Norwegian -- is it particularly easy or particularly hard to translate?
steveha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Article is BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
While MS pulled some dirty tricks to get OOXML approved and many of us are rightfully questioning ISO's credibility, this article appears to be (at best) sensationalizing things according to one of the arstechnica comments:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For anyone [slashdot.org] thinks this "conversation" is a little strange, twitter, "right handed" and "inTheLoo" are the same person.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably... this guy is hardly [slashdot.org] that clever [slashdot.org], though *grin*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's said the next Euro-war will be between Britain and Norway, over the North Sea oil.
What?! Who the hell says that?
Firstly, prosperous modern democracies with large middle classes and a lot to lose do not go to war. There has never been a single case. It is just not going to happen.
Secondly, there could be no victory. If Norway attacked Britain, the rest of Europe would stand by and watch Norway reap its well-deserved stomping from the vastly superior British armed forces. If Britain attacked Norway, the rest of the EU would declare war on them. Either way would bring utter disaster for the
What the hell (Score:4, Informative)
Erris
Mactrope
gnutoo
inTheLoo
willeyhill
westbake
Odder
ibane
myCopyWrong
right handed
GNUChop
All these accounts belong to the same person And he's getting modded up? Where do I sign up
for this deal? Where I can game Slashdot so blatantly and be rewarded for my troubles?
Once you've crossed that threshold, whatever you had to say is completely irrelevant. I don't care
who you are. Rules exist in online communities for a good reason, and this... sorry, shitstorm of
"I agree with you" replies by a single person is just too much.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter, you are clearly an idiot. MS posts one of the highest net profit margins of the sector, easily outstripping all "open source" friendly companies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dude, you said the same thing Macthorpe [slashdot.org]. Can't you keep your sock puppets straight?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Mactrope is pretty much on the ball here. He may have some issues, I really don't know, but Microsoft can make as many mistakes as they want, stuff everybody up and generally be the worst player in the field.
The world is so entrenched in the MS paradigm that to them MS=Computers and Computers=MS. That's all he is saying.
is there ANYone to explain me why parent (Score:3, Insightful)
are there any morons among us, who are STILL saying that microsoft did nothing wrong in this ooxml scandal ?
Re:is there ANYone to explain me why parent (Score:4, Interesting)
I wasn't commenting on that, I was commenting on the 7 sockpuppet conversation that twitter decided to have with himself at the start of the comments.
I am seriously beginning to question his sanity - I mean, in the last 6 months he's accused me of sending him death threats, of working for Microsoft and of harbouring multiple Slashdot accounts, none of which are remotely true and the latter being supreme hypocrisy. He's a newspaper headline waiting to happen.
are there any morons among us, who are STILL saying that microsoft did nothing wrong in this ooxml scandal ?
Come to mention it, some actual concrete proof would be nice, but I've already found out that I'm as likely to get that as Ellen Degeneres is of settling down with a nice man. Call me a moron if you like, but I tend to like evidence that isn't circumstantial groklawed hogwash before accusing people of anything.
A lot of people on Slashdot forget how many companies rely on Microsoft's dominance of the market to make a living. Instead of thinking "Well, maybe the reason a lot of companies registered to vote is because their profit margin relies on OOXML becoming a standard", they instead jump to the most extreme conclusion they can find.
Parent
Re:is there ANYone to explain me why parent (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people on Slashdot forget how many companies rely on Microsoft's dominance of the market to make a living. Instead of thinking "Well, maybe the reason a lot of companies registered to vote is because their profit margin relies on OOXML becoming a standard", they instead jump to the most extreme conclusion they can find.
there were a lot of companies who depended on the nazi party to make a living. and they did.
results were less than desirable for entirety of the rest of the world.
just because someone needs to make a living doesnt justify any of their actions by itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha.
Seriously. I don't get paid to mod down twitter & friends' inane drivel. It gets modded down because its complete rambling bollocks, on par with the time-cube guy.
What is a standards body? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe no laws were broken in this process. Why can't the EU courts take this up?
Easy - a "standards body" is not an entity with any legal weight. All it is is a group of people who get together and make recommendations that others may choose to follow. It's purely a political process but not at all a legal one. The only value that a standards body has is that other entities (EG: companies) trust it to determine what technologies to implement and in what fashion.
For example, there there is no legal requirement that any software vendor implement TCP or IP. But TCP and IP are detailed by the ISOC [isoc.org]. If you are a software company, you will implement your TCP stack in accordance with ISOC standards or your implementation will be considered sub-standard.
But if you screw up your implementation, there's little ISOC can do, and nothing legally. They can say you are bad, they can make recommendations against your software. But that's it.
The only weight that a standards body has is that others trust the insight and recommendations made by the standards body. When a standards body can be legitimately accused of shenanigans, that's pretty much it's end.
Goodbye ISO, it's been nice knowing ye...
Parent
Many laws were broken (Score:3, Insightful)
First among them treason. Agents of a US corporation have subverted major agencies of sovereign nations. Those government employees of non-US nations have by their participation betrayed their nation, the public trust they held in their positions, and their duty. They've done it to preserve the profitability of a foreign enterprise, and by extension line their own pockets.
It's only a matter of time before this is figured out. Heads will roll - in some cases figuratively and in some cases literally.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here. And I don't mean "new on Slashdot". I mean "new in the real world". No heads will roll. Nothing will happen. Life and corruption will go on just like before. Business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Beautiful though it is to imagine arrest warrants for treason in several countries - including a lot of banana republics that aren't exactly known for their progressive attitude towards capital punishment - against top-level Microsoft executives, I really don't think it's going to happen.
The only way it can happen is if all these countries which were previously shown to be corruptible suddenly decide that they have some principles after all and aren't afraid of the US bombing the hell out of them when they
Re:Can the EU courts look at this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Normally, it would be illegal for a bunch of companies to get together and collude like they do at a standards body. But anti-trust laws have exceptions to promote the creation of open standards. You would think such an exception would not apply if participants were paid or otherwise compensated/coerced into voting to benefit an existing monopoly.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the ISO entities themselves; it's M$ and their hired cronies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ODF, unlike OOXML, was *not* fast tracked through standards, *and* it is a far more concise standard; OOXML was far too large to reasonably be managed via fast-track IMO, so it shouldn't have been.
It sounds like ODF was pushed through as a standard before it was ready, and Microsoft's reaction was 'well, if you're going to approve one crappy standard for office docs, you should approve ours as well.'
No, MS couldn't really care less, but some of it's clients (large orga