Yes, according to what I linked. Cheap propaganda.

So, what is that EIF really about if all this is false? It is basically for the procurement of internal software for the European Commission. Here they start a process to identify and evaluate standards and move towards more interoperable solutions. However, no one says they would only be using “open standards and specifications” as they define them. The whole framework is not static in any way.

All this would be of no significance if there wasn’t a definition for open standards that does not meet the redefinition attempts by your lobby community. Note that we can discuss whether there should be legacy formats and other standards and formats, provided by various standard bodies and consortia. I can’t see how they want to rule them out. In fact they just aim for “open standards” and a fuzzy more of interoperability.

And at the IDABC workshop in the last presentation was beating a bit the drum for open source, again for Commission internal software developed by the Commission, uhm well. I am aware of two bigger web application projects so far. It was also a means to provoke quite a bit and to flex the muscles. Nothing more. And of course they know that lobbying against them would make them even stronger and more popular inside the EU-Commission. Other departments are a bit envy that they get so much exposure. Just like putting a flag on an uninhabited island.

Hugo Lueders of CompTIa was complaining about *mandatory* “open standards” with the IDABC staff. But this is not what its all about and why shouldn’t a Commission decide on its own what standards it goes for. Basically the lobbyists are out of touch with the process although they track it for four years. I only drives the Commission more and more angry, they fortify their process better, they create more processes in the case one gets under attack and further expand it.

Two weeks ago I had a look at the eIF v1 again and wonder why there was all this heavy lobbying against it. It is so moderate and rational. It is just a recommendation, like a research paper. It became popular because of the resistance to it. Now the EIF v2 draft will be a clumsy alternative with all backdoors, just to preserve the simple EIF 1 mission.

http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7704
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/3761

Accroding to what you linked, the EIF is proposing to so narrowly define interoperability as to exclude from usage for European inter-governmental communication things like GSM phones, Wi-Fi systems, CD’s, Bluetooth, etc. (and the list goes on). Wow!

As for this being bullying, it is no such thing. It’s just pointing out that the EIF don’t know what they’re talking about, in very straightforward language.

As for it being Microsoft that is doing it, no. According to your own linked artciales, here is the list of companies who are pointing out the stupidity:

Acca Software, Adobe, Altium, Apple, Attachmate, Autodesk, Avid, Bentley Systems, Borland, CA, Cadence Design Systems, Centennial Software, Cisco Systems, CNC Soft-ware/Mastercam, Corel, Dell, EMC, Enteo, Graphisoft, HiT Internet Technologies, HP, IBM, Inaz, Intel, Intergraph, LMS International, Mamut, ManageSoft, Materialise Software, McAfee, Microsoft, Microstar, Mindjet, Monotype Imaging, Nemetschek, O&O Software, Panda Software, PTC, Quark, Quest Software, SAP, Scalable Software, SGS, Siemens PLM Software, SolidWorks, SP Grupo Sage, Softline Pastel, Staff & Line, Sybase, Symantec, Synopsys, Tekla, The MathWorks, and Trend Micro.

I woud like to think that eventually consumers will decide which format and/or deffinition is right for them and in what context.

Such as bullshitting the legislators and regulators and administration of foreign nations? The EU IDABC European Interoperability framework (EIF) version 2 draft is not even out but the Microsoft lobby machine is already running at full speed and bullies the Commission.

http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1964355&LS=EMS189365
http://w3.bsa.org/eupolicy/press/newsreleases/062508pr.cfm

By the way, at the recent EIF info day IDABC staff mentioned OOXML as an example for an format that qualifies as open. Quite shocking for many participants. And don’t mention the Gartner…