The ODF Alliance has published a JTC1 Voting Guide for National Bodies for those considering how to vote on the Microsoft OOXML specification. Please take a look if you are involved with a vote or forward to any colleagues of yours who are.
One month to go.
Bob,
A few quibbles on this document …
First, it links to very out-of-date JTC 1 Directives. The current version is at http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf
Secondly, although it’s not stated clearly by the Directives under what circumstances a BRM is not called, precedent suggests that there has to be 100% approval for it to be considered unnecessary if the standard is to be passed.
Thirdly, it is certainly possible to accompany an “approve” vote with comments (but it is also true that this is generally a “weak” vote, and does not guarantee those comments will be addressed).
- Alex.
Headsup: a troll appears to be smearing your name in LinuxToday.
Roy, thanks. I try to avoid getting involved at the personal level, because that is exactly what they want. The community response is usually much better than what I could do, anyway.
Alex, thanks, I’ll pass that along.
Alex, when I look at the version of the JTC1 Directives that you linked to, the G18 form (DIS Ballot) clearly states, “If a national body votes affirmatively, it shall not submit comments.” What do you make of that?
@Bob,
You need to look at clause 9.8, which is a special clause specifically for Fast Track DIS voting (as opposed to _normal_ DIS voting). It states one of the voting options is “approval of the technical content of the DIS as presented (editorial or other comments may be appended)”. In practice it’s unlikely JTC 1 will prevent any country from making any comment it likes for any reason. The fact remains, though, that comments accompanying an approval vote are less likely to get addressed than comments accompanying a dissaproval vote.
- Alex.
In addition to what Alex has written, it may be useful to note that (unless the BRM is conducted differently to the normal JTC1 and SC34 way of doing things) there is usually not a legalistic approach where every item on every National Body’s “no with comments” list must be agreed to as listed before approval can be granted.
In discussing the points, a National Body may prefer their original suggestion for correction, they may get an explanation or new facts that they are satisfied with and withdraw the issue, they may come to prefer some other national body’s correction, they may decide that their issue was based on a wrong understanding, they may think a particular issue of theirs is not important enough to hold things up, they may be content to move the issue to maintenance, they may decide that their voice has been heard, they may decide to concur with majority opinion on an issue in the name of consensus, they may withdraw the issue if it turns out to be non-technical. In the months between the 5month ballot and the BRM, the National Bodies can look and discuss each others concerns, and they may even alter their position during that time. Probably more possibilities.
This is not to say that every issue won’t be considered, of course. But co-operatively. I suspect that the issues would be grouped and a task-force consider different groupings: the large number of issues is not a particular problem procedurally because so many of the individual issues raised so far are just instances of a lesser number of general issues.
Here’s ACT (an anti-FOSS Microsoft Lobbing Arm) teasing you. Do you know no bounds these people?
http://blog.actonline.org/2007/08/mass-officially.html
How much do they get paid for that?