Steve Pepper writes "The former Chairman of the Norwegian ISO committee, who resigned two weeks ago in protest against his country's vote of Yes to OOXML, tells the inside story of how the decision was reached: how a single bureaucrat from Standards Norway sidelined the overwhelming majority of Norwegian technical experts and changed Norway's vote from No to Yes. The story is so surreal it's hard to believe." It's as depressing as it is brief.
Groklaw also has information on this story for those interested. But some may have missed it because it's part of the update in this story [groklaw.net].
At this point, in a bizarre and tasteless trans-Atlantic timewarp, Dr. Johnny Fever, Venus Flytrap, Herb Tarlek, and Jeffifer Marlow, dressed as the Spanish Inquisition, burst in, and say, in chorus:
"NO! One expects Les Nessman!"
They bundle up Eugene and haul him off to stunned looks from all present.
Microsoft have done it for us. The money they paid to push through their "standard" is wasted because the body the standardized it is no longer respected. Their purpose for seeking approval from a standards body has been defeated by the way in which they obtained it.
But the ISO is also the one who approved ODF. So if ISO is no longer trustworthy, who is left to say what is a good standard. If the whole standards body has lost credibility, where can we go to find out which standards to really use? If a government is looking to mandate open standards in it's document formats, which standards body should they go to to ensure the standards chosen are actually standards?
Presumably a government would want to mandate open standards for a reason.. other than just to be hip.. so they should do what the US military does: demand that there be at least 2 suppliers for software that can read those formats. That should just about immediately eliminate OOXML, as I hear the biggest complaint was that there is parts of it that are just not implementable by anyone but Microsoft.
If you can't read the whole thing then it is pointless implementing the standard. You'll get "almost works" which is the same as "broken".
And, really, the US military does this multiple supplier requirement for hardware only.. they dabbled with it on the software side with the POSIX requirements, but that's about it.
Tell that to all the browser makers who implement HTML and CSS. None of them have it 100% correct. Some of them get 100% on Acid 3 (I think anyway), but still that doesn't mean they follow 100% of the standard. I guess there's a difference between "Impossible to implement due to bad definition", and "implementable, but nobody has done it yet". However, I'm sure even Microsoft strays from their own standard in some way or another, so I can't see why they would hold another vendor at fault. Sure they can't possible know what "AutospaceLikeWord95" is actually supposed to do, but they can look at what MS Word does, and make a best guess.
Having not actually implemented the standard myself, I can't really comment on how terrible it is. But I can imagine that if actual information loss was involved, instead of just formatting or whatever, then a government that was looking for a standard to store their documents in would bork at OOXML. They could discover this from doing a test program and seeing if the interoperability of the products that support the standard is actually any good, or they could discover this the hard way after storing documents in one product's implementation of the standard for years and then trying to switch products.
But if, in the end, there's no real need for their documents to be stored in open formats then the only people who really care that the are stored in these formats are shills.
"But I can imagine that if actual information loss was involved, instead of just formatting or whatever, then a government that was looking for a standard to store their documents in would bork at OOXML."
If any government were inclined to bork at OOXML, the Swedish government would be first on the list.
Anyone except open source programmers, since the license for ooxml is incompatible with the GPL. As well, the patent situation is another large roadblock for open source (not to mention anyone else). So really, not just anyone can use it.
I'm still trying to decide if you're just a Microsoft fanboy, or an actual shill.
"Anyone except open source programmers, since the license for ooxml is incompatible with the GPL."
Huh, I didn't know that "open source programmers" == "GPL". There are many OSI licenses that ARE compatible with OOXML even if GPL is not. And I don't concede your point even regarding GPL, since Gnumeric implements OOXML with GPL code.
"As well, the patent situation is another large roadblock for open source (not to mention anyone else). So really, not just anyone can use it."
The patent provisions are the same as for ODF. Jason Matusow has recently posted two blog entries regarding the IP issues regarding OOXML (and compares it with ODF, PDF, etc), which are very good reads. (Yes, he works for Microsoft, so you might just dismiss him as a liar, but if you're willing to read Rob Weir and Groklaw, and take what they have to say as unquestioned Gospel, you might want to at least take a look what the other side has to say; if anything it'll make your own arguments stronger in the future.) More Open XML Discussion - more misunderstandings about standards and IP [msdn.com] IP, RAND, Standards, OSP, ISP - the conversation continues... [msdn.com]
Here's an excerpt from the first blog entry:
The ISO/IEC JTC 1 patent policy is applied uniformly to all standards in the ISO/IEC JTC 1 arena. The idea that the RAND declaration regarding Open XML is any different than a RAND declaration for ODF or for any other ISO Standard (such as...oh I don't know...how about PDF just for fun. Remember the huge list of patents that Adobe used to put on the welcome screen of the Acrobat reader alone?). The terms provided for the Microsoft patents in Open XML are legally irrevocable. They are global. Since they are broader than the RAND declaration for JTC 1, the attempt at FUD by the Groklaw post should be recognized for what it is...FUD.
Incidentally, both of the above blog entries point out that Linux distros already ship software under licenses that are incompatible with each other, making today's Linux distros technically illegal already. In the second blog entry, Jason goes on to say regarding this:
Legal snags like the ones I mentioned only matter if someone presses it in a court case. No one can say if these issues will ever become an issue but that has never stopped a single person from using Linux. So, when people then say that the MS OSP, or IBM's ISP, or RAND terms, or whatever means that Free Software developers can't develop something, I find it hard to take seriously when the intent, and all of the materials surrounding these actions speak of building bridges and enabling...not shutting down or threatening. Those same developers are willing to take those exact same issues as no concern on one hand and then scream foul on the other.
(BTW, regarding the GPL, I'll quote a comment made by 'hAL' to the second blog entry: "Both the 'Interoperability Specification Pledge' from IBM (on for instance ODF v1.0/v1.1) and Suns 'Covenant Not to Sue' suffer from the same issue with GPL as Microsofts OSP licensing. GPL3 code can be reused outside the limits of those RAND licenses. Any patent protection by IBM and Sun on OpenDocument and from Micrsoft on OOXML will not apply if the GPL code is reused in a project that does not fall under those licenses. As Suns covenant only applies to OpenDocument reuse of patent protected code from an ODF code for anything else but an ODF implementation voids the covenant.")
Anyway, the post to which I replied talked of nobody being able to implement OOXML support besides Microsoft. He didn't say anything about "open source programmers", let alone "GPL". As long as there are other OOXML programs, even if they are closed source programs, ta
I wrote that point, and no, it doesn't resolve that problem. "different vendors" means an independent second source.. meaning that if Microsoft decide to discontinue support for OOXML in 10 years time you can switch to another vendor who has the ability to keep fixing bugs in their implementation.
"If they decide to quit supporting OOXML, the OOXML SDK, or fuzzykittens32.lib, guess what? All your code's still going to work."
Only on the same hardware platform and guaranteed only on the exact same version of Windows.
If Microsoft decides to discontinue OOXML and releases a new version of Windows that is incompatible with the OOXML SDK, you will have to re-implement the SDK yourself to allow its use on the new version of Windows. Or even worse, Microsoft just decides to discontinue the SDK without notice while still keeping OOXML within MS Office.
Using the SDK means that your application is completely on Microsoft's terms, complying fully with their licensing requirements for this SDK and you are fully at their mercy when it comes to releases of the SDK.
If you are releasing a competing software package to MS Office, you will not want to leave this much power with your competition.
They win either way. If international standard organizations are discredited, Microsoft is more or less free to dictate their own "standards" and claim they are legitimate ones.
I would even risk to say they win _more_ by discrediting ISO than by winning approval on one and only one standard.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday April 20 2008, @08:17PM (#23137990)
Join OOXML forces and show just how devoted you are: In order to preserve the reputation of this beautiful standard, make sure that no company can use the name if they're not 100% compliant with the complete spec. Chances are that no product can claim full OOXML support, not even MS Office. If "OOXML" doesn't appear on any product's feature list, the standard won't matter.
C. Push for a standards body that can't be bought by the highest bidder. Then call for the dissolution of the ISO.
I've thought an awful lot of ISO standards were a joke before. They seem to be more interested in codifying whatever is already being used---no matter how awful---than in actually coming up with standards that are in any way useful. This just confirmed that opinion beyond reasonable doubt....
Frankly, it makes me wonder how much corruption has gone unnoticed in previous ISO standards simply because it was not as blatant....
You can make it prohibitively expensive to buy a standard. For example, require:
A complete test suite for judging compliance.
Two independent (no shared code) implementations.
One of the implementations to be under a license no more strict than the revised BSD license, and ideally in the public domain.
Then, Microsoft could buy OOXML by 'simply' documenting enough behaviour that it is possible to implement it, writing a set of conformance tests, and funding the development of an open source competitor.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday April 20 2008, @07:16PM (#23137726)
The whole OOXML vote debacle has really showcased corruption of the ISO. Those in the ISO who want to restore the integrity of their organization need to address the massive rule-breaking this vote and Microsoft's role in it present.
Word of advice to ISO: head in the sand is not going to help!!
I second this motion. Can we bring to a vote the matter of incompetence in the ISO voting procedures? Not just because this is about OOXML, but because it is so obviously filled with discontent and deceit.
In most other situations we would call for a 'do over' or call it a false start or some other phrase that describe how wrong and generally unfair it was.
The corruption came with ECMA, so ECMA as the ISO parasitarian instrument needs to be removed: no ECMA fast-track without ECMA's special relationship...
on why & how they changed the vote can be found at their website:
Which was just a very long-winded way of saying that the decision had been made long ago and they just had to come up with some weasely way to push it through regardless of all the comments that weren't addressed satisfactorily, the problems with the proposed standard, and what the experts said about it.
Actually, I thought this was the most telling line from the article:
The VP asserted that... the most important thing now was to ensure that OOXML came under ISO's control so that it could be "further improved".
This puts me in mind of that old quote about academia "The fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small".
The delusional hubris of a (European standards group) bureaucrat that they can somehow "control" or "improve" (shit - "influence in any non-quantum way") Microsoft's behavior just makes me groan.
Many (if not most) similar committees and associations are made up not of the right people for the job, but instead those that were corralled into the positions or couldn't find anything better.
On the other hand, Microsoft's primary goal is to maintain their privileged monopoly wherever and however possible. I actually had an eerie conversation with a Microsoft paralegal, who described her job as "palm-greasing officials in the Asian market". She also described how the executive were no longer concerned with making money, "they're in a position to change the world". I asked her what level of government they planned to get elected, and she replied, "why would they run for office? That would be a demotion!" And that was almost 10 years ago.
Assuming she was giving a truthful account, and her office was directly below Bill Gates, so I imagine she does know what goes on, the Microsoft executive believe that since power is available to them, they are entitled to use their influence wherever and however possible, and that their ability to do so justifies itself.
So show me a group of vigilante multi-billionaires and I'll show you dozens of half-witted committees that bend to their will, despite overwhelming reasoning to do otherwise.
I wondered what alternative standards bodies could exist and I tried to find a web peer method that might work.
The best idea I came up with was a standard body for GPL standards based around something like sourceforge.
If people are familier with wide band delphi estimation then this next bit might sound familiar.
Everybody on sourgeforge has a rating determined by amount of code submitted, and any peer review ratings on their code - this then gives them a weighting value for voting. The more technical they are, the more code they submit the higher their rating is. Everybody can then vote on their amendments or proposals for standards and a moderation scheme would run to promote or demote comments based on their ratings. Changes can then be voted in or removed democratically and the best ideas would naturally float up.
The advantages are:-
1. very large audience peer review of any standard
2. best ideas automatically promoted (even if you are a newbie reviewer if you have a good idea then it should gather momemtum of its own and be promoted)
3. system automatically handles voting, promotion, weighting scale and is therefore impartial arbiter.
4. transparency accross the board, everybody can see how the system works
5. if anybody wants to become more influential then they have to donate more source code to be a prolific reviewer. Everybody benefits.
Ok that is an isolated example, and I chose sourceforge as a well known example.
For standards instead of source there would need to be some changes obviously.
But in this day and age, agreeing on a technical international standard seems an excellent candidate for a web based system. In reviewing this kind of thing I have always thought the more the merrier.
Anyhow, only an idea, a pipe dream really.
I now await the/. regulars to tell me what a tit I'm being and why it would never work:-(
(I also wondered on how the voting would of turned out if the current provess was peer reviewed - i.e. filmed and distributed for all to see on the standards websites.)
That is corruptible as well. The trick here is be sure all coders both writer and reviewer FULLY disclose their affiliations. You couldn't even begin to do this Wikipedia style. No pseudonyms, no handles, everybody has to use their real names and digging into and publicly disclosing corporate actions and affiliations would be cricket.
Even then, if 5000 MS coders blatantly write and approve each other how would you propose to handle it?
I suspect the answer here is "Write up what is actually being implemented into an RFC. Any RFC that can't be understood clearly and implemented will be dev nulled." Since many of us are already disregarding the ISO over this, I suppose that is happening already..........
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday April 20 2008, @11:44PM (#23139040)
In Sri Lanka, the first round of voting was a "Yes", but there were more technical input later to the standards committee which made it a unanimous "No" for the final vote. But again there was so much lobbying which made it an "Abstained".
The best part of this scandal is how easily the conspirators got caught. Anybody can blog the truth and their voice will spread and amplify instantly if what they say holds any weight. This is a great demonstration of a new paradigm of security.
This was never the case people!!
This kind of manipulation is as old as the voting system itself. It is possible, it works, and there are some who are extremely good at it. And until yesterday, they could easily get away with it as long as the press didn't side against them. Now, we don't even need the press. We no longer depend on journalists to tell us the story. Whistleblowers no longer wish to remain anonymous, and when an insider demonstrates wrong doing, we listen, we act, and we revolt.
It is only a matter of time before bloggers reach critical mass in politics and everywhere else.
I cannot wait for the day our president is a blogger.
You can find his reasoning explained in a journal article called "The Ballamer Principle: A dissertation on the proportionality of the relationship between Microsoft's annual office furniture budget and strategic failures their global modus operandi." Published by Ikea Press.
I suggest you go read the article again.
It wasn't 2 people for and 2 people against. They reached a consensus that 2 of the comments had been satisfactorily resolved and that 2 of the comments hadn't been satisfactorily resolved. They then couldn't come to a consensus on whether the remaining 8 comments were resolved. The 80% number was the number of people that were not satisfied enough to vote yes. They had agreed that 2 of their comments were not satisfactorily resolved. Which way the remaining 8 comments fell could only increase this number. Roughly 80% of those present didn't want to vote yes. The final change to yes came down to one man, who seems to have had his mind made up ahead of time.
So then, why did not the 80% form a consensus that they should vote 'no'? Saying that they were not satisfied enough to vote 'yes', does not mean they vote 'no'.
Because there was NO VOTING, IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS!!!!!
I find it odd you didn't mention OpenOffice, Google Docs, KOffice, iWork, etc. Most would at least mention OpenOffice sarcastically, as another "option" that couldn't possibly work, but you didn't mention it at all.
Coincidentally (Score:5, Funny)
Further coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Coincidentally (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Three Line Novel (Score:5, Funny)
"NO! One expects Les Nessman!"
They bundle up Eugene and haul him off to stunned looks from all present.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Coincidentally (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What can be done now? (Score:5, Interesting)
- demonstrations? This is what happened in Norway. Sure it would be good to have them elsewhere.
- Virgils? this is what happened in India and almost on the same level.
- moving on a building teams to stifle OOXML adoption by national governments as their standard
- ???
Re:What can be done now? (Score:5, Funny)
- demonstrations? This is what happened in Norway. Sure it would be good to have them elsewhere.
- Virgils? this is what happened in India and almost on the same level.
- moving on a building teams to stifle OOXML adoption by national governments as their standard
- ???
Parent
Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Informative)
And, really, the US military does this multiple supplier requirement for hardware only.. they dabbled with it on the software side with the POSIX requirements, but that's about it.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Interesting)
But if, in the end, there's no real need for their documents to be stored in open formats then the only people who really care that the are stored in these formats are shills.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Funny)
If any government were inclined to bork at OOXML, the Swedish government would be first on the list.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still trying to decide if you're just a Microsoft fanboy, or an actual shill.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Informative)
Huh, I didn't know that "open source programmers" == "GPL". There are many OSI licenses that ARE compatible with OOXML even if GPL is not. And I don't concede your point even regarding GPL, since Gnumeric implements OOXML with GPL code.
"As well, the patent situation is another large roadblock for open source (not to mention anyone else). So really, not just anyone can use it."
The patent provisions are the same as for ODF.
Jason Matusow has recently posted two blog entries regarding the IP issues regarding OOXML (and compares it with ODF, PDF, etc), which are very good reads. (Yes, he works for Microsoft, so you might just dismiss him as a liar, but if you're willing to read Rob Weir and Groklaw, and take what they have to say as unquestioned Gospel, you might want to at least take a look what the other side has to say; if anything it'll make your own arguments stronger in the future.)
More Open XML Discussion - more misunderstandings about standards and IP [msdn.com]
IP, RAND, Standards, OSP, ISP - the conversation continues... [msdn.com]
Here's an excerpt from the first blog entry:
The ISO/IEC JTC 1 patent policy is applied uniformly to all standards in the ISO/IEC JTC 1 arena. The idea that the RAND declaration regarding Open XML is any different than a RAND declaration for ODF or for any other ISO Standard (such as...oh I don't know...how about PDF just for fun. Remember the huge list of patents that Adobe used to put on the welcome screen of the Acrobat reader alone?). The terms provided for the Microsoft patents in Open XML are legally irrevocable. They are global. Since they are broader than the RAND declaration for JTC 1, the attempt at FUD by the Groklaw post should be recognized for what it is...FUD.
Incidentally, both of the above blog entries point out that Linux distros already ship software under licenses that are incompatible with each other, making today's Linux distros technically illegal already. In the second blog entry, Jason goes on to say regarding this:
Legal snags like the ones I mentioned only matter if someone presses it in a court case. No one can say if these issues will ever become an issue but that has never stopped a single person from using Linux. So, when people then say that the MS OSP, or IBM's ISP, or RAND terms, or whatever means that Free Software developers can't develop something, I find it hard to take seriously when the intent, and all of the materials surrounding these actions speak of building bridges and enabling...not shutting down or threatening. Those same developers are willing to take those exact same issues as no concern on one hand and then scream foul on the other.
(BTW, regarding the GPL, I'll quote a comment made by 'hAL' to the second blog entry:
"Both the 'Interoperability Specification Pledge' from IBM (on for instance ODF v1.0/v1.1) and Suns 'Covenant Not to Sue' suffer from the same issue with GPL as Microsofts OSP licensing. GPL3 code can be reused outside the limits of those RAND licenses. Any patent protection by IBM and Sun on OpenDocument and from Micrsoft on OOXML will not apply if the GPL code is reused in a project that does not fall under those licenses. As Suns covenant only applies to OpenDocument reuse of patent protected code from an ODF code for anything else but an ODF implementation voids the covenant.")
Anyway, the post to which I replied talked of nobody being able to implement OOXML support besides Microsoft. He didn't say anything about "open source programmers", let alone "GPL". As long as there are other OOXML programs, even if they are closed source programs, ta
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Informative)
I can't believe I have to explain this.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on the same hardware platform and guaranteed only on the exact same version of Windows.
If Microsoft decides to discontinue OOXML and releases a new version of Windows that is incompatible with the OOXML SDK, you will have to re-implement the SDK yourself to allow its use on the new version of Windows. Or even worse, Microsoft just decides to discontinue the SDK without notice while still keeping OOXML within MS Office.
Using the SDK means that your application is completely on Microsoft's terms, complying fully with their licensing requirements for this SDK and you are fully at their mercy when it comes to releases of the SDK.
If you are releasing a competing software package to MS Office, you will not want to leave this much power with your competition.
Parent
Re:Nothing needs to be done (Score:4, Insightful)
I would even risk to say they win _more_ by discrediting ISO than by winning approval on one and only one standard.
Parent
Another direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Norway had very low perceived corruption (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What can be done now? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What can be done now? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is what is meant by "Democracy" these days (Score:4, Funny)
Glad to see you're not, like, bummed out, or something, dude.
Parent
Re:This is what is meant by "Democracy" these days (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes... excellent. Smithers! Summon the undead Greek poets!
Re:What can be done now? (Score:4, Insightful)
C. Push for a standards body that can't be bought by the highest bidder. Then call for the dissolution of the ISO.
I've thought an awful lot of ISO standards were a joke before. They seem to be more interested in codifying whatever is already being used---no matter how awful---than in actually coming up with standards that are in any way useful. This just confirmed that opinion beyond reasonable doubt....
Frankly, it makes me wonder how much corruption has gone unnoticed in previous ISO standards simply because it was not as blatant....
Just my $0.02.
Parent
Re:What can be done now? (Score:4, Insightful)
- A complete test suite for judging compliance.
- Two independent (no shared code) implementations.
- One of the implementations to be under a license no more strict than the revised BSD license, and ideally in the public domain.
Then, Microsoft could buy OOXML by 'simply' documenting enough behaviour that it is possible to implement it, writing a set of conformance tests, and funding the development of an open source competitor.Parent
Odd... (Score:5, Funny)
After the vote, did the bureaucrat jump up and starting dancing like a monkey?
After the vote did the bureaucrat start throwing chairs around?
Did the bureaucrat appear slightly chubby and a whole lot balding?
If the answer to any of the above is yes, I might be able to shed some insight on this...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ISO corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Word of advice to ISO: head in the sand is not going to help!!
Re:ISO corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
In most other situations we would call for a 'do over' or call it a false start or some other phrase that describe how wrong and generally unfair it was.
Time for a do-over rule.
Parent
Re:ISO corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
How Microsoft corrupts the world... (Score:5, Funny)
In this case, a meatspace seg fault. The MCP is getting more powerful. We need a heroic Program to save us all.
Standards Norway's own words (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.standard.no/pronorm-3/data/f/0/18/67/6_2401_0/2008-04-01_Standards_Norway_handling_of_the_OOXML_voting_in_ISO__3.pdf [standard.no]
Re:Standards Norway's own words (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Standards Norway's own words (Score:5, Insightful)
The delusional hubris of a (European standards group) bureaucrat that they can somehow "control" or "improve" (shit - "influence in any non-quantum way") Microsoft's behavior just makes me groan.
Parent
So what's new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many (if not most) similar committees and associations are made up not of the right people for the job, but instead those that were corralled into the positions or couldn't find anything better.
On the other hand, Microsoft's primary goal is to maintain their privileged monopoly wherever and however possible. I actually had an eerie conversation with a Microsoft paralegal, who described her job as "palm-greasing officials in the Asian market". She also described how the executive were no longer concerned with making money, "they're in a position to change the world". I asked her what level of government they planned to get elected, and she replied, "why would they run for office? That would be a demotion!" And that was almost 10 years ago.
Assuming she was giving a truthful account, and her office was directly below Bill Gates, so I imagine she does know what goes on, the Microsoft executive believe that since power is available to them, they are entitled to use their influence wherever and however possible, and that their ability to do so justifies itself.
So show me a group of vigilante multi-billionaires and I'll show you dozens of half-witted committees that bend to their will, despite overwhelming reasoning to do otherwise.
alternatives.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The best idea I came up with was a standard body for GPL standards based around something like sourceforge.
If people are familier with wide band delphi estimation then this next bit might sound familiar.
Everybody on sourgeforge has a rating determined by amount of code submitted, and any peer review ratings on their code - this then gives them a weighting value for voting. The more technical they are, the more code they submit the higher their rating is. Everybody can then vote on their amendments or proposals for standards and a moderation scheme would run to promote or demote comments based on their ratings. Changes can then be voted in or removed democratically and the best ideas would naturally float up.
The advantages are:-
1. very large audience peer review of any standard
2. best ideas automatically promoted (even if you are a newbie reviewer if you have a good idea then it should gather momemtum of its own and be promoted)
3. system automatically handles voting, promotion, weighting scale and is therefore impartial arbiter.
4. transparency accross the board, everybody can see how the system works
5. if anybody wants to become more influential then they have to donate more source code to be a prolific reviewer. Everybody benefits.
Ok that is an isolated example, and I chose sourceforge as a well known example.
For standards instead of source there would need to be some changes obviously.
But in this day and age, agreeing on a technical international standard seems an excellent candidate for a web based system. In reviewing this kind of thing I have always thought the more the merrier.
Anyhow, only an idea, a pipe dream really.
I now await the
(I also wondered on how the voting would of turned out if the current provess was peer reviewed - i.e. filmed and distributed for all to see on the standards websites.)
Re:alternatives.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even then, if 5000 MS coders blatantly write and approve each other how would you propose to handle it?
I suspect the answer here is "Write up what is actually being implemented into an RFC. Any RFC that can't be understood clearly and implemented will be dev nulled." Since many of us are already disregarding the ISO over this, I suppose that is happening already..........
Parent
Same happened in Sri Lanka (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks OOXML, You have given us hope. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was never the case people!!
This kind of manipulation is as old as the voting system itself. It is possible, it works, and there are some who are extremely good at it. And until yesterday, they could easily get away with it as long as the press didn't side against them. Now, we don't even need the press. We no longer depend on journalists to tell us the story. Whistleblowers no longer wish to remain anonymous, and when an insider demonstrates wrong doing, we listen, we act, and we revolt.
It is only a matter of time before bloggers reach critical mass in politics and everywhere else.
I cannot wait for the day our president is a blogger.
Re:wound it be ironic if (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:I was kind of puzzled (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't 2 people for and 2 people against. They reached a consensus that 2 of the comments had been satisfactorily resolved and that 2 of the comments hadn't been satisfactorily resolved. They then couldn't come to a consensus on whether the remaining 8 comments were resolved. The 80% number was the number of people that were not satisfied enough to vote yes.
They had agreed that 2 of their comments were not satisfactorily resolved. Which way the remaining 8 comments fell could only increase this number. Roughly 80% of those present didn't want to vote yes.
The final change to yes came down to one man, who seems to have had his mind made up ahead of time.
Parent
Re:I was kind of puzzled (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:You are at fault. (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you don't know that they exist?
Parent