NoOOXML

I think it clearly shows that the whole process is in the hands of a company and it gets privileged access while NB are getting bullied.

Vendor capture as part of the system.

When you are called before a judicial panel you can't be a judge in your own case. That ISO/IEC seems to be used to these practices doesn't mean its an acceptable practice. But if its common we need at least full transparency about it, because otherwise we will get the "externals get a say"/"we have no influence on ECMA" propaganda.

I was not aware that Rex Jaeschke actually shared an address with Microsoft. I am pretty sure it will be important news for the EU-Commission that investigates the whole case. No one told me before. I thought Rex Jaeschke was a staff person.

I don't consider myself as anti-Microsoft although I am upset about the way the company abuses international standardization and their lobbying of politicians in foreign nations.

In terms of duty I would like to know how it works: How can you be an employee and bound in your actions by your work contract to a company and be also a impartial person carrying out a task in international standardization. What ECMA or ISO provisions guarantee that your employer does not take undue influence?

I thought Rex Jaeschke was a staff person.

He's a person closely associated with the originator of the standard who was also appointed to be the editor. In normal fast-track cases there is no real problem with that, because a standard that is fast tracked should be mature. If all that is required is resolution of contradictions, a few finishing touches and some consistency checks, it is probably a good thing that the project editor is already familiar with the standard. I would actually suspect it is regular procedure.

However, this is not a normal case. It is a pathological case of abuse of the fast track process, and OOXML would have been better served by a regular process with a longer, more open and less lopsided standardization process.

So, the problem is not with Rex Jaeschke being the editor. It goes far deeper than that. Had OOXML been a good and mature standard I am sure he would have been a good choice. In current circumstances nobody could have done a good job. The problem is with the process as a whole, not with any specific event or person. There's a big picture here, so don't get lost in details.

MS tries to put lipstick on a pig to make it fly. Not only is it the wrong approach to the problem, it is the wrong problem to try to solve.

"MS tries to put lipstick on a pig to make it fly. Not only is it the wrong approach to the problem, it is the wrong problem to try to solve"

And how effective do you think it is to post about this now? How important is this?

From what I see, most people that gathered at Geneva's BRM went there unprepared. The bulk vote was not anticipated. This is a huge mistake. And apparently not even Patrick Durusau's statements were anticipated, despite ample problems caused by so many P-countries at ISO now stalling the work at ISO (not just about OOXML, everything).

It's good to fight a just cause. But you need the appropriate weapons. In that case, it's a major failure on OOXML critics part to have not anticipated what would be done by Microsoft and their business partners to get it time stamped.

Everything else is just noise.

And how effective do you think it is to post about this now? How important is this?

I fail to see your point. Are you telling me to shut up and go find something better to do, or are you saying that we all had the wrong approach to things and that all is lost to MS's sleazy trickery? It's very easy to point out mistakes after the fact, but did you anticipate this? If so, why did you not take appropriate action yourself? In any case, how important is it that you tell people now that they should have done things differently? Suggest what to do *now* instead, that would be a lot more useful. What would be the appropriate weapons, and how should they be assembled? Your input would be appreciated, I am sure of that.

Everything else is just noise.

Sometimes making noise is actually a good thing in itself. You should not underestimate the power of enough people expressing profound disappointment with decisions, even after the fact. Dictatorships, by definition, can never be taken down by a vote. It actually takes a strong public outcry to bring an end to oppression. If this is indeed a losing game against covert and totalitarian tricks which we are unequipped to anticipate and counteract, the best we can do is actually to make a lot of noise.

Articles posted here do not follow a coordinated master plan or communication strategy. We find stuff that interests us and document it.

In that case, it's a major failure on OOXML critics part to have not anticipated what would be done by Microsoft and their business partners to get it time stamped.

I am not responsible for Microsoft's actions nor does anyone need to anticipate them.

And apparently not even Patrick Durusau's statements were anticipated, despite ample problems caused by so many P-countries at ISO now stalling the work at ISO (not just about OOXML, everything).

This is just PR spin. The arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Have you seen the latest Duresau with the Russian peasants? OMG!