So we’re a few days past the end of the BRM, as I suggested in my last post we’re starting to see an increasingly solid picture emerge of the success of the meeting and high levels of positive progress made during the five days in Geneva.
Of course folks who have been working against OpenXML over the last year are still doing all they can to continue to whip up the frenzy that increasingly appears to have been staged for the press during the closing part of last week.
On a much more positive and productive note, over the course of the weekend we have started to see National Standards Bodies issue press releases talking about the meeting and how it served their national interests, along with some more rounded information about the process, what the vote actually was and what was approved.
First of all a press release from Standards Norway, Jason Matusow has an English translation on his blog this morning.
The release talks about the meeting purpose, the value that the Norwegian delegation got from attending and includes some quotes from the delegation members.
Every country had the opportunity to put forward their most important comments at the meeting, and most of the Norwegian comments got a good run-through. This goes for instance to the Norwegian proposal on multi-part and “scope” of the separate parts. The meeting was also conducted in an efficient and proper manner according to the instructions and rules for ISO/IEC BRM-meetings. The standards proposal for ISO/IEC 29500 will now be changed by the Editor according to the instructions given during the BRM-meeting.
Second is a similar press release from the Danish National Body, their release is shorter but also talks about the involvement of the Danish delegation at the BRM and how they achieved their objectives by representing Denmark’s comments on the original DIS and as a result have improved the standard.
Again Jason has an English translation up on his site.
The Danish delegations mission to ensure a Danish fingerprint on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML, and thus improve the standard, was fully accomplished, since all Danish comments have been approved to be worked into ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML.
Finally, Alex Brown has posted more information in the comments section on Updegrove’s newly renamed post, Alex talks more about the actual process at the meeting, rather than some of the assumptions and suppositions that we have seen posted elsewhere.
I really wanted to post the whole comment here but it was too much text. I would encourage to to jump over to Andy’s blog and read it for yourself, it probably has more value in the context of the entire conversation anyway.
Here is a extract from the comment, as I say please click the link above to read the whole conversation;
Your headline has now transitioned from being “not even wrong” to “wrong”. If you want to fix it you should remove the words “fail to”. However, since this is not then a very on-message headline for you I suggest maybe you should have something like “OOXML still in flux as clock ticks down” or “BRM performs emergency surgery on OOXML in desperate rescue attempt” or some such.
I think it is wrong for you to claim your original headline was some kind of necessary counterbalance to Jason Matusow’s: his was predictably on-message (from the MS POV), yours was (and is) factually misleading.
Also, by my records Charles Schulz was not a BRM delegate as you categorize him.
You then raise several points about the adequacy of the Fast Track process. Fair enough; no comment. On the particular questions about in-meeting voting I can tell you:
- Yes, it was a good idea to take votes (congratulations to the BRM on wisely choosing this route)
- Yes, it was within my, and the meeting’s, powers to allow it
- Yes, what happened was fully in accord with the JTC 1 Directives (O-member voting and all)
OBVIOUSLY (given the red hot controversy here) voting procedure was discussed in minute detail, and decided, in consultation with ITTF before the BRM started. I (as somebody primarily used to SC participation, rather than fast tracking) had some un-learning to do, and I think some other commentators do too. If a country has a complaint it can appeal formally — that (rather than wittering to the press) is the correct way to do it.