Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Proposed Use case -- Interoperability invertical and horizontal ODF markets

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

In a recent note, Paul, you stated:


"I am on occasion guilty of error.
When error is called to my
attention, I retract or amend my prior statement. Unlike some at this
meeting (and I do not accuse you of it), I do not practice dishonesty."

Well, let's put that sentiment to the
test.

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/27/2008
04:35:12 PM:

> 
> We are not on the same page. You simply continue to duck both the
> merits of my use case and the violence done to all versions subsequent
> to OASIS ODF 1.0 at JTC 1 when Patrick Durusau switched the
> requirements keywords definitions specified in section 1.2 to ISO/IEC
> Guidelines definitions from RFC 2119 definitions without doing a
> solitary thing to fix the mischief he wrought.
> 
>
> 
> That presents a rather interesting legal situation because ISO/IEC
is
> a private standards development body, not a government standards body,
> and only ISO/IEC rules and policies allow alteration of an
> international standard after it is voted on by the NBs. But the
> Agreement on Technical Barriers is superior, international law that
> squarely places the obligation to adopt international standards and
> technical regulations on the Member nations of that treaty, i.e.,
the
> NBs that vote on its adoption.
> 
> So there is a very strong case --- even without looking at the
> substance of the two versions --- that OASIS ODF 1.0 in the form it
> was voted on by the NBs is the true international standard, not the
> massacred version adopted by ISO/IEC as ISO/IEC:26300.
> 

The facts are as follows:

ODF 1.0 was approved by a ISO/IEC JTC1 ballot in May
2006.  As part of the ballot we received the following NB comment,
from British Standards International (BSI), the UK's NB:

"The text does not conform to Annex H of the
ISO Directives defining acceptable verbal forms for the expression of provisions
(i.e. the use of "shall", "should", etc.). It uses
the conventions of IETF RFC 2119 instead. Our understanding is that the
PAS procedure does not allow exemption from this requirement".

The request from BSI was:

"Edit all provisions to conform to Annex H of
the ISO Directives."

The ODF TC approved this change, along with other
changes requested by NB's in the comments.  These changes are listed
in Appendix G.3 of the ODF Standard.  In no way was Patrick Durusau,
the DIS 26300 Project Editor, acting alone in this.  

Further, JTC1 NB's were given the edited text of ODF
1.0, and were given 30 days to object to any changes made, per JTC1 process.
 There were no objections.

Further, the same changes were applied to OASIS ODF
1.0 (Second Edition, which was then sent out for public comment and then
approved as a Committee Specification.  We received no public comments
concerning the change from IETF to ISO control language.

So, although you portray this a a stealth change made
by one person in order to wreck interoperability, in fact it was a change
requested by a JTC1 NB, in the JTC1 process, approved by the ODF TC, and
presented for review and objection to all JTC1 NB's, and then sent out
for public comment by OASIS.  No objections were heard whatsoever
in these reviews, including none from you. You grossly misrepresent what
happened when you suggest "mischief".

Further, your overall argument seems to rest on mandating
a ISO/IEC JTC1 definition of interoperability, while at the same time precluding
the use of ISO/IEC JTC1 control vocabulary.  This is rather curious.
 I think it is a sign of the weakness of your argument that it falls
apart when we consistently follow JTC1 requirements, and not just the arbitrary
sampling of JTC1/WTO/IETF, etc., rules that comprise your patchwork franken-law.

-Rob