No is no, to OOXML

I’ve heard several reports of supporters of OOXML trying to get national standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with comments” to “YES with comments” because “it’s the same thing.” The logic, which I’ll explain in a later post, is that any comments will trigger a ballot resolution meeting, so there is no need to be so negative and vote NO.

This is ridiculous.

The mathematics of the voting process very much differentiates between YES and NO votes. Submit comments, please, pointing out the technical issues of why OOXML should not become a JTC1 (ISO/IEC) standard, but also vote NO to confirm your statement and intent. This is very important.

It’s amazing that anyone could even suggest that “since you want to reject it, you should vote for it,” but such is what we’re dealing with.

It would be hard to make this stuff up. By all means vote “no with comments” but do not vote yes in any form if you expect changes to be made.

Also See: An “OOXML is a bad idea” blog entry compendium


This entry was posted in Document Formats, Standards and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to No is no, to OOXML

  1. WuMing Shi says:

    Dear Bob,

    I am not surprised.

    I am a bit confused myself with “Yes/No”/”Approval/Disapproval” as it applies to standard committee voting. With V1, take Rob Weir’s description:

    “”Disapproval, with comments” is also sometimes called “Conditional Approval” since it signals that the committee would change its vote to Approval if the concerns raised in the comments were addressed in a revised version of the submission)”

    So, is there any “No” vote which means “No” in plain English?

    Regards
    WuMing Shi

  2. WuMing Shi says:

    That reminds me that in developing countries, there are political activists who tells voters who will not vote for their candidate to put a “X” besides their candidate’s name because a “X” means to disapprove him/her.

    Trust me, this is not Urban Legend. It is something election commissions worldwide is fighting against. The use of “X” rather than other more suitable symbols is partly to blame.

  3. John Scholes says:

    Voting in JTC1 is fairly confusing and misunderstood by many people. I have devoted many entries on my blog to trying to clear up the confusion, such as http://doyoulovems.com/archives/56 on “Yes with comments”.

    However, I agree that it makes no sense to vote Yes if you want any improvements to the standard, even minor ones.

    In practice, it seems almost certain that there will be a Ballot Resolution Meeting in this case. If a National Body simply wants to vote No, no matter what happens at the BRM, then it needs to (1) vote in the current “letter ballot”, because it won’t get invited to the BRM unless it votes (and voting “abstain” does not count for this purpose), (2) keep voting No at the BRM. See more at http://doyoulovems.com/archives/62 .

  4. > I’ve heard several reports of supporters of OOXML trying to get national
    > standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with comments” to “YES with comments”

    For a moment I thought you said ‘trying to get national standards bodies to change their votes from “NO with comments” to “YES with CASH”‘

  5. Griffin3 says:

    It seems to me, voting “YES, with comments” is about exactly equal to asking a used car salesman for a better deal, after you’ve handed him the cash. Good luck with that little maneuver …

Comments are closed.