Re: [odf-adoption] Fast Track approval anyway

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

Since I posted here, others with more experience in the ISO process
have advised that it will take longer than 5 months for Ecma 376 to
reach final ballot, more like a minimum 13 months. Also, it appears
that the Directives rule change I mentioned has not yet been formally
adopted and that the JTC1 Secretariat is anticipating their adoption
at a meeting in March by allowing Ecma 376 to proceed on the fast
track. A red line of the old directives and their proposed revisions
is here. <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/6202637/JTC001-N-8521.pdf?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=6202637>.

Meanwhile, the backlash seems to be mounting. Three federal agencies,
the Department of Transportation, the FAA, and NIST have reportedly
banned upgrades to variously, Vista, MSIE 7, and Office 2007. DOT,
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CPID0SY4ST0CIQSNDLRCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=197700789>;
NIST (Dept. of Commerce),
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198000229>;
FAA.
<http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197800480>.
 Migrations to Linux and Google Apps are mentioned as being studied by
the FAA, with specific mention of FAA consultation with Dell about
providing computers pre-loaded with Linux. (Google Apps provide
OpenDocument support.) The FAA article concludes:

"Because of Google Apps' sudden entry into the desktop productivity
market, what once would have been a routine decision at the FAA to
eventually upgrade to Microsoft's latest software is now firmly up in
the air. With similar debates doubtless playing out at other
government agencies -- and in the private sector -- Microsoft is going
to have to work a lot harder than in past years convincing customers
to follow its well worn path of new releases and follow-on patches."

And Europe's IDABC summarized a just-concluded conference of
government IT types from 21 member nations as follows:

"In particular we take note of the overwhelming view from Member
States on the detrimental effect that more than [one] standard in one
area would have, significantly increasing confusion, complexity and
cost."

<http://www.openforumeurope.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=937&Itemid=1
>

So I'd say offhand that the File Format War is far from over. :-)

Best regards,

Marbux

On 3/14/07, Charles-H. Schulz <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> thank you so much for this answer. What I can see from that is the
> secretary general of the ISO acted legally and perhaps in "bona fide" as
> he saw the overwhelming presence of Microsoft at a level the proponents
> of the real standard (ODF) were never able to reach. Also, this change
> in that section at the last minute is troubling.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Charles.
>
>
> marbux a écrit :
> > The relevant JTC1 Directives section was changed on February 20. Now
> > draft standards can proceed on the fast track despite any
> > contradictions.
> >
> > The new section 13.4 has this language:
> >
> > "If a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall
> > make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month
> > period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the
> > NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem
> > necessary. A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be
> > convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if required.
> >
> > "If the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for
> > fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be
> > considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document, to
> > be processed as a new proposal.
> >
> > "If the resolution results in no change to the document or if a
> > resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot
> > commences immediately after such a determination is made."
> >
> > So, whereas the old version allowed for fast tracks to be essentially
> > halted by irreconcilably contradictions, the new version simply says
> > that if there is no agreement, then simply ignore the contradictions
> > and go on with the 5-month ballot anyways.  This seems to be a major
> > transfer of power from NB's to Fast Track submittors like Ecma, making
> > the contradiction phase a toothless waste of time.
> >
> > It also appears to conflict mightily with the Agreement on Technical
> > Barriers to Trade, which, inter alia, requires that standards not even
> > be prepared if they would create unnecessary obstacles to
> > international trade and requires that the standardization process
> > provide a meaningful early opportunity for national bodies to object
> > to the preparation of standards that would create such obstacles.
> >
> > The silver lining in the dark cloud might be that the process probably
> > won't be dragged out for years if Ecma 376 stays on the fast track. We
> > should have an up or down final ballot about five months from now.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Marbux
> >
> > On 3/13/07, Charles-H. Schulz <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com> wrote:
> >> Hell all,
> >>
> >> am I missing something?
> >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012860&intsrc=news_ts_head
> >>
> >>
> >> If anyone would like to comment, I'd love to hear his/her comments on
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Charles.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>