NoOOXML

Please try to provide some useful argument instead of a non-specific insult. This is a forum, a place for discussion, not a blog where you leave random derogatory comments.

Thank you very much for your clarifications.

You can imagine that I didn't aim to offend any person involved but will be happy to hammer on the intransparency of the ISO process. To me, insisting on ISO rules is a technocratic defence that has little value for persons who want to get it right. If rules inhibit dissemination of information and thus better deliberations these rules are bad for NB and the standards. We found out that ISO rules do not permit the openness required to enable sufficient review of a digital standard. The less light the worse the result. The less review the more bugs.

"JTC 1 rules prohibit the formal exchange of information between NBs for a project under late-stage ballot."
-> Why?
-> If ISO rules do not permit sufficient review of the spec and coordination among member states bodies why continue?

a) For me
"or those subsequently raised in the meeting"
means that the ECMA dispositions for comments are the fundamental change proposals to be discussed and those "subsequently raised in the meeting" are changes to the project editors' proposals.

For those delegates it seemed to be a matter of rank and the fear is that putting the ECMA dispositions in the center of the negotiations gives ECMA undue rank (that after all is no 'real' member of the BRM).

b) The national comments can be discussed only one by one. If my NB submitted 144 comments I would have no chance to put forward my own national change proposal package that addresses all of my comments sufficiently for my NB.

I know that a delegation discussed an impressing solution for the date problem. It would be great to see it applied. After all the BRM should agree on as much as possible to get a decent text. Either you group responses or you discuss them on a single base. With the second approach we would likely get a BRM text that addresses a maximum of 15% of the bugs.

arebendi,

In my view adherence to the correct procedures is not just "technocratic"; it is absolutely essential for the fairness of the process, in this as in most formal human collaborations.

One of many reasons for prohibiting formal document exchange is so that countries can know for sure, and in advance, what is on the table at the meeting. It would be unfair for a country to arrive at the BRM and find some critical last-minute document has been formally entered into the process which needed to be considered. Informal exchange between NBs, and the drafting of working documents are, however, common phenomena. Indeed, there has - to my knowledge - already been a great deal of informal exchange prior to the BRM in this process.

"subsequently raised in the meeting" means "subsequently raised in the meeting". I didn't add "based on an Ecma response" so it beats me why you interpret it this way.

I have said nothing about mandating the Ecma dispositions are "in the center of the negotiations", so it beats me why you do. In practice it is likely that NB disagreement with Ecma proposals will be the engine of the meeting.

Of course a country cannot insist on discussing 144 comments at once; doing this properly would be unfair on other NBs who would then be squeezed out of the process.

A lot of NBs have proposals about "the date problem". The BRM is an excellent forum for airing them, and it's likely we will enjoy a good discussion on this subject.

- Alex.

It will be a hard time for you and the participants next week. I strongly hope the meeting will be productive to fix as many issues as possible and participants will contribute in a constructive way.

With or without rules: things can go wrong! The more technocratic the easier becomes it to hide abuse behind rules and procedures.

"In my view adherence to the correct procedures is not just "technocratic"; it is absolutely essential for the fairness of the process, in this as in most formal human collaborations."

Technocratic organisations as standard bodies get used to rules to structure the process and become unable to apply reforms. In the end it gets difficult to identify the objectives or original power constellations behind some rules. I am all for rules and respect for rules. But here rules also protect misconduct. A text is discussed that does not suit the process. National committees were bluntly hijacked.

What about common sense? What about personal responsibility and care?

As Bonhoeffer said: "The ultimate question for a responsible person to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation is to live."

People outside the process are free to pose evil questions. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they don't understand. This kind of public sphere is crucial for a democratic and transparent process. Technocratic institutions as ISO lack that kind of public attention. But if public attention is there they defend behind their complex rules and apply a hostile attitude. You cannot argue with a catholic dogmatist about trinity. He has more than thousand years of sophistics to defend him. A technocrat will always use his advanced knowledge of rules to fence the public off. Which is after all also the purpose of these rules. To get rid off personal responsibility and become part of a powerful machine. And if someone feeds OpenXML in the machine it needs to be processed…