Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=id&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detikinet.com%2Fread%2F2010%2F07%2F28%2F151112%2F1408538%2F398%2Fdokumen-negara-wajib-gunakan-format-odf%2F%3Fi991103105

In its pre-release form Office™ 2010 supports not the approved Strict variant of OOXML, but the very format the global community rejected in September 2007, and subsequently marked as not for use in new documents – the Transitional variant.

[Their] representatives will argue (with some justification) that terms like “legacy”, “deprecated”, and “new document” are tricky to define, but then this argument extends to the bizarre assertion that the Strict variant need never be supported. I believe, however, countries expect a more reasonable, plain-dealing approach to their clearly expressed intent – not this kind of wheedling sophistry. Mr Capossela writes that Microsoft has “learned a lot”; but on the evidence before us now, this was wishful thinking.

On the "Fii destept" ("Be Smart") website http://www.fii-destept.ro , we have some arguments for legally buying Windows 7 preinstalled on new computers:

"Would you buy a bike without chain or brakes ? Then why would you buy a PC without Windows legally preinstalled ?" says the announcement. "P.S. If you've answered YES at the first question, then it must be something wrong with you".

"If you trust your neighbour, Gigi, to install an operating system on your new computer, well… Our advice is to purchase an original Windows 7 license and don't rely on Gigi".

Other campaign sites are http://ftw.ro/ („volunteer” bloggers on the same subject), http://www.schimbafontul.ro , http://scoaladeeficienta.ro/

The general impression is that Microsoft is targeting the less IT-educated audience in Eastern countries, to counterbalance market share loses in other parts of the world.

How do you comment on that ?

manoj87

Find Lawyer

The conference will be held in Bucharest - details on http://www.eliberatica.ro

Romania is still a "red mark" on Microsoft's empire map: no official discussions about OpenDocument at government's level, Excel studied in Economics University (ASE http://www.ase.ro) like the Bible, no OpenOffice.org or alternative software in schools, OLPC program furiously rejected by Romania's think-tank senators ("this toy computer can't even run Microsoft Word !")…

Even Romania's president officially thanks to Bill Gates on his visit in Romania because "an entire generation of IT professionals grew up illegally copying Microsoft Office" and "Microsoft is an important, strategic partner to Romania's govermnent"…

Maybe Eliberatica it's a good occasion to inform Romanian public at large about the OOXML corruption scandal, the importance of real standards and the peril of proprietary software ?

Can someone please help?

partial quote from PJ:

Guess what the SC 34 committee, the ISO/IEC committee responsible for OOXML, is up to now? I call it a takeover attempt of ODF, according to my reading of the published notes of the most recent meeting held yesterday, October 1st, and starring a document titled "Request to JTC 1 for alignment of OASIS and JTC 1 Maintenance Procedures." Uh oh. That sounds polite, but it is what it is. An attempted coup. They have already sent a "Liaison Statement" to OASIS. Surrender or else, what? SC 34 asks JTC 1 "to establish with OASIS a synchronised mechanism for maintenance of ISO/IEC 26300 and to inform SC 34 of the outcome." I gather they think they can do a better job of maintaining ODF than OASIS. What will JTC 1 do, do you think? You doubt they will hop on to this wonderful plan?

SWG-Directives is the "special working group" that proposes changes to JTC1 Directives. They met at the end of July. In advance of the meeting many NB's submitted proposals for fixing Fast Track and BRM procedures, base on the obvious flaws in the process brought out by the processing of DIS 29500 OOXML. However, when they arrived at the meeting, the Chairman, Scott Jameson (from HP) ruled that these items must be removed from the agenda because the OOXML appeals were still in progress. Page 7, "Adoption of the Agenda" is where it gets interesting:

ISO/IEC JTC1
SWG-Directives
29-31 July 2008
Mont Tremblant, PQ, Canada
Location:
Hotel du Lac / Club Tremblant
121 Rue Cuttle
Ville du Mount Tremblant,
Quebec, Canada

1. Opening of Meeting (09:00 hrs)
2. Introduction of Participants
3. Adoption of Agenda

DOCUMENT: JTC 1 N 9178

The Chairman opened the discussion by noting the concern about postponing agenda items related to Fast Track and Ballot Resolution Meetings expressed by some delegates. The Chairman agreed that these topics are important, and acknowledged that National Bodies had done significant amounts of work on contributions related to these topics, but because of the pending appeals on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (OOXML), discussion of these topics would be inappropriate. The Chairman informed attendees that as per the note on the draft agenda, items 9, and 15-21 would not be discussed. He then opened the floor for comments from attendees.

Mr. Barta of the ITTF expressed support for the decision of the Chairman, as the appeals address the Fast Track process, and discussing them would impede members of the IEC SMB and ISO TMB from doing their jobs.

The National Body of Japan requested a clarification about exactly would and would not be discussed; and expressed their concern about delaying these discussions. It was recommended that discussions on these topics occur, but making official decisions would not be made. The Chairman again stated that because of the open appeals, these topics would not be discussed.

The National Body of Germany suggested that as the appeals are related to the procedures in place when the Fast Track ballot of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 began, any discussions that might occur at this meeting are unrelated, because these are future procedures. The National Body of Germany further stated that the amount of contributions on this topic indicate that National Bodies are dissatisfied with the Fast Track process, and that the IEC SMB and ISO TMB should be made aware of this dissatisfaction.

The National Body of Canada supported the German position; stating that if the Fast Track process was not discussed, it would be interpreted as a show of support for the current process.

The National Body of Canada further noted that the SWG-Directives does not make decisions, but makes recommendations that are forwarded to JTC 1 for approval. It was suggested that any ballots on changes to the Fast Track or Ballot Resolution Meeting procedures be deferred until
the close of the appeals.

The National Body of the United Kingdom stated that it recognized the difficulties and possible misinterpretations of any discussions that might occur, but wished to have a firm timeline for when such things could be discussed. The UK expressed concern about postponing discussions until the March 2009 meeting.

The Chairman explained the appeals process, and the timelines associated with it. The IEC SMB and ISO TMB will conclude their votes on whether

or not to move forward with the appeals on 4 August 2008. Upon the close of this ballot, there will be a two-month window where appeals to this decision can be submitted. If no further appeals are received, the process will be concluded.

If the SMB and TMB agree to consider the appeals, conciliatory panels will need to be established. Should this occur, a final decision may not be reached for as long as a year.

The National Body of Japan suggested planning a meeting of the SWG-Directives to be held in conjunction with the October 2008 JTC 1 Plenary in Nara, Japan. The Chairman thanked Japan for this suggestion, and informed the group that a decision would be made on an additional meeting in Japan later in the agenda.

The Chairman asked attendees if there any objections to approving the agenda contained in JTC1 N 9178 with the deletion of agenda items 9, and 15-21. While no National Bodies objected to the adoption of the agenda, the National Bodies of Canada, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom expressed their disappointment with the deletion of the items.

4. Chairman's Remarks
The Chairman informed attendees that a discussion of the draft JTC 1 Supplement, circulated to attendees via email in advance of the meeting, would take up the bulk of the meeting. He further informed attendees of his intention to circulate the text to all of JTC 1 after an initial review by the SWG-Directives.
The Chairman also suggested that the SWG-Directives might want to adopt a more ambitious schedule to ensure that the JTC 1 Supplement is published in conjunction with the 2010 edition of the ISO/IEC Directives.

4.1 Report of the June ISO/IEC Joint Directives Maintenance Team meeting

The Chairman reported on the 2 June 2008 meeting of the JDMT. He reported that some corrections of ambiguities for the clauses on the roles and responsibilities of Chairmen and Secretaries were made, but no other changes will affect JTC 1.
The Chairman also informed the group that Ad Hoc 25, which was established to review the length of ballot periods, reported to the JDMT and it was agreed that there will be no change to the length of the DIS ballot.

5. Review of Recommendations of March 2008 SWG-Directives meeting

DOCUMENT: JTC 1 N 8987

The Chairman noted that Recommendation 5 from the March 2008 meeting is not complete but that the JTC 1 Secretariat would work to complete it.

ACTION: See Recommendation 1.

"None of the appeals from Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela received the support for further processing of two-thirds of the members of the ISO Technical Management Board and IEC Standardization Management Board, as required by ISO/IEC rules governing the work of their joint technical committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology."

A rejection means that the ISO 29500 could be published and set into effect unless further complaints are launched. We and others discussed before the appeal water down documents and the offensive Bryden interview. From this ISO appeal recommendation document we may get a clue what the voting process was precisely about:

14. The TMB and the SMB may choose one of two options for each appeal:
14.1 Not to process the appeal any further. This is the equivalent of denying the
appeal. If all four are denied, publication of ISO/IEC 29500 may proceed. The NB
concerned may appeal this decision to the Councils.
14.2 Process the appeal further. This has the consequence that a conciliation panel
must be organized. In this event it seems indicated to organize a single
conciliation panel for all the appeals being processed.

So apparently option one was chosen. Additionally the recommendation was:

The processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further.

I wonder what the subject of the vote precisely was as recommendation 20 apparently goes further than 14.1 and 14.2.

Just curious, how does the voting work

It is evident to me that the appeal voting is highly vulnerable to manipulation when you have to get a 2/3 majority. The voting was not even on the substance of the appeals but on "further processing" them and I am not aware of any "further processing" formality decision requirement. A 2/3 majority rule always means that one option is favoured in advance. In ISO and national bodies it is common for processing of specifications where the bias is usually towards adoption. Do you need a 2/3 majority for "processing further" the appeal or "rejecting it before consideration"? You get the point. At times you vote until you get the wanted results. A friend of mine was furious about the ISO/IEC decision and asked himself similar questions:

Where is it written that it is needed a support of 2/3 to process an appeal? This could be considered a humiliation for the countries that have summitted the appeals.

Looks like the ISO/IEC procedural rules and their interpretation offer great surprises again. Or as a more devilish commentator suggested

It is an elegant abuse of newly invented rules to justify the abuse of previous rules. You have to admire the way it even sounds democratic…

Or as ISO/IEC words it:

Experiences from the ISO/IEC 29500 process will also provide important input to ISO and IEC and their respective national bodies and national committees in their efforts to continually improve standards development policies and procedures.

or as Mr. Bryden would say:

Some of the negative publicity is quite extreme and as ISO's Secretary General it's not exactly pleasant for me to see ISO vilified, particularly when much of the extreme criticism is based on false assumptions and a lack of understanding of what ISO is and how it works.

We will find out once again. It is a challenging task to carefully study all the details but sure someone would do.

This is not the end

The NB concerned may appeal this decision to the Councils.

I am curious if that would happen. The effects are described by the ISO press release

According to the ISO/IEC rules, DIS 29500 can now proceed to publication as an ISO/IEC International Standard. This is expected to take place within the next few weeks on completion of final processing of the document, and subject to no further appeals against the decision.

Effectively it would make a lot of sense for National Bodies to file more.

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/open/NATO-supports-ODF-open-document-format--/news/111127

Regards,
Răzvan

At its recent plenary meeting in Norway, JTC 1/SC 34 established 2 ad hoc groups concerned with the collection of comments on and maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500. Adjudicating these appeals will necessarily delay ISO/IEC 29500, at a minimum, and this delay could have a significant effect on the work of these ad hoc groups. SC 34 and its ad hoc groups should take this into account when planning their future work.

As to whether the fast track was "abused" - strictly speaking (and contrary to much commentary) the fast track is not "designed for" any particular kind of spec. The Directives state "the criteria for proposing an existing standard for the fast-track procedure is a matter for each proposer to decide". However, I don't think you'll find (m)any NBs who think that putting this spec on the fast track was a good idea. Personally I would like to see both the fast track mechanisms in the JTC 1 process scrapped as a first step to improvement.

ISO is different, and this is in part because the Secretary General is not a "CEO" - this is not (in general) a top-down command structure but one in which the power is held by the members. There is clearly a need for reform and that needs to come from a coordinated consensus of countries who want to see that happen.

Also, to the extent that NB decision making is outside of JTC1's jurisdiction, we can create all the rules we want, and even follow them, and a company large enough, and with funds enough to pull in the token participation of a couple dozen island nations and desert dictatorships can override the collected wisdom of the relatively small number of NB's who care about the rules.

Sorry for the offtopic, but action is needed against a new restrictive law that is in preparation for European citizens: the legal possibility to filter an to inspect your IP traffic.

Please see details here:

http://tinyurl.com/4mvle6

and here is the action page:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Mobilisation_Paquet-Telecom

Regards,
Razvan

Recently, a few figures about this contract has been published by ComputerWorld. For Romanian readers, the original is here: http://www.computerworld.ro/?page=node&id=13973

Basically, a frame contract has been drafted in 2004 for lending 50,155 Microsoft licenses to Romanian administration, on a value of $54,567,465, payable until 2009. Since Romanian administration aquired new computers, another 39,385 licenses were needed, on a value of $26,172,156. This last amount is due to be paid until 2011.

We still hope in Free Software (free as in speech): GNU/Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc.

Details about how OOXML vote went in Romania are available at http://aranea.zuavra.net/index.php/97/ (English) and http://rsandu.myblog.ro (Romanian).

The “South African Bureau of Standards” (SABS) approved the Open Document Format (ODF) on Friday 18 April as an official national standard. This adoption, if implemented, will reduce choice, decrease the benefits of open competition and thwart innovation. The irony here is that South Africa is moving in a direction which stands in stark relief to the reality of the highly dynamic market, with some 40 different formats available today. …
Governments should not restrict themselves to working with one electrical standard, and should urge legislators to refrain from any kind of mandatory regulation and discriminatory interventions in the market. The global electrical industry recommends Governments to embrace the reality and logic of choice and to devote their energies to ensuring interoperability through this choice.

Isn't it funny that he thinks he can still do it? In his usual lobby schizophrenia Mr. Lueders likes to speak for 'the industry', get his emotional 'we' into a public debate and oracles about 'eSkill's. Here he speaks unprecedented for the 'global electrical industry'. Will he be the 'initiative for software choice' or the voice of European smes next time again? How long will his clients let him carry on?

Glynn Mody comprehended:

And which bunch of geniuses put this nonsense together? Why, our old friends CompTIA, which has by now given up any pretense of offering objective comment on the computer market, and is simply a vehicle for crude Microsoft propaganda.

Rob Weir even tried to argue with the propaganda punchbag:

Consumers don't want a bag of adapters to convert between different formats and protocols. That is giving consumers a choice in a solution to a interoperability problem they didn't ask for and they don't want. Consumers want a choice of goods and services.

But you don't have to convince press speakers and hired guns. But can you imagine that Jan 'the answer is always the same, you are well paid, shut up' van den Belt works for comptia after leaving as an ecma international secretary? What a shame for the person to which the jtc1 rewrite was dedicated. Will people let also his collegue Mr. Lueders rewrite the essence of international standardisation? Or can the Dutch nihilist provide some technical assistance?

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/31/microsoft_india_tax_ruling/

Thank you.

short quote:

"This was just sent to ISO from the chairman of the Norwegian standards committee responsible for evaluating OOXML:

Formal protest regarding the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee…."

http://iso-vote.com/
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/the-last-lap.html