07.08.08
WikiLeaks Catches ISO with Pants Down
The article covering this is in German, but the exhibit is there for all to see. Groklaw has this summary:
Heise Reports ISO Report on Fast Track is on Wikileaks
[PJ: The report is in German, and you must draw your own conclusions. They provide a link to the document on Wikileaks, which is in English, and they say the report "does not directly refer to that particular fast track process. Rather it is a response to a question which had been asked at a previous meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1's Special Working Group on the Directives about the fast-track process in relation to amendments to standards." The conclusion? That fast tracking should only be for standards "which do not need changes". The origin of the document is "IEC Central Office", and is guessed to be Gabriel Barta. The significance is that ISO publicly has stated how wonderfully the OOXML Fast Track process worked. It seems someone disagrees.]
How foolish must ISO and Microsoft feel? How much and how long can they attempt to deny the abuse of this process? █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.
Dennis Matthies said,
July 8, 2008 at 9:18 am
You could probably go back 20 years and find records of ISO officials making these same points and asking these same questions about the fasttrack process, just like any other process in ISO… it is there role to ask questions like this then evolve the process (or not).
This isn’t exactly a smoking gun, more like a bureaucrat doing his job.
Roy Schestowitz said,
July 8, 2008 at 9:29 am
“This year WG1 have had another major development that has made it almost impossible to continue with our work within ISO. The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto. This delay will mean that these standards will appear on the list of WG1 standards that have not been produced within the time limits set by ISO, despite our best efforts.
The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.”
–Martin Bryan, ISO ‘Escapee’
Formerly Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 WG1
Conley Owens said,
July 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Groklaw has a summary? Where?
Roy Schestowitz said,
July 9, 2008 at 4:07 pm
It was in News Picks , so the URL changes constantly (paging).