dirtiest trick of all
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Oct 16, 2007 12:08 PM EDT |
So Microsoft is like rats- what they can't eat, they pee on. |
| techiem2 Oct 16, 2007 12:48 PM EDT |
So...whether they win or lose, they're determined to mess up the process as much as possible? Lovely. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 16, 2007 12:55 PM EDT |
I just hope that there are some rules in the ISO charters about this somewhere. Surely there's some anti-abuse stuff in it. I'd just love to see the new non-voting members booted out and not being able to vote on OOXML when it comes up again. That should guarantee something like 75-80% "no" votes in the next round, killing it for good :-) |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 16, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
Carla, Have I ever told you how beautiful you are when you say bad things (which, of course are all true) about Microsoft? :-) |
| techiem2 Oct 16, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
You would think they would have some sort of rule like, "If you don't vote on at least X/Y ballots after becoming a P member, you are automatically downgraded back to an O member." |
| jdixon Oct 16, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
> So...whether they win or lose, they're determined to mess up the process as much as possible? No. They don't care about the process at all except to the extent it serves their ends. It serves their ends to keep the yes votes in place for the next time they're needed. The fact that nothing else can get done doesn't concern Microsoft at all. |
| tuxchick Oct 16, 2007 1:00 PM EDT |
Awww Scott, that's sweet. Trashing MS is easy and fun! |
| number6x Oct 16, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
I don't think they sought to mess up the process. They sought to get their OOXML resolution passed. They really didn't care about any other consequences their actions might have. It never crossed their collective minds. It wasn't a topic on any of their meetings and wasn't a line item in the project file they had for this, so the fact that their stuffing the ballot box would result in any other consequences didn't even exist for them. It is telling, however, of how myopic Microsoft management is. I think you see the same pattern of behavior repeated over and over by MS. They concentrate so hard on delivering this one thing or that one feature, the fact that their methods screw up things elsewhere for their products and customers never seems to enter the minds of the management. Projects are made up of many small deliverables, just as patchwork quilts are made of many small pieces. But together they have to form a servicable end product. Microsoft management seems more like a South Pacific cargo cult. Checking deliverables off in MS Project, executing test scripts, and fullfilling goals. Then wondering why the planes don't come. Just sticking a bunch of cloth together won't make you a quilt that will keep you warm and cozy for years to come. |
| dinotrac Oct 16, 2007 1:09 PM EDT |
Come on, you guys...stop all this Microsoft bashing. There's a very simple explanation for all of this: They're scumbags. |
| jdixon Oct 16, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
> They're scumbags You have such a way with words, Dino. :) |
| tuxchick Oct 16, 2007 5:51 PM EDT |
OTOH, why are the ruling ISO poobahs acting so helpless? How about some rules, like two strikes and you're out for a few decades? Geez. That works way better than whining and begging. |
| jdixon Oct 16, 2007 6:26 PM EDT |
> ...why are the ruling ISO poobahs acting so helpless? Seriously? The idea that someone would try to strongarm the process in this way probably never occurred to them, so there are no procedures in place to deal with it. For example: It probably takes a majority of the voting members to remove the voting rights of another member. Ditto for changing the rules to eliminate non-voting members. That means that it's extremely difficult to change things once a group like this is in place. They can prevent any changes by simply not voting. If I were the current management, I'd delcare an emergency vote to change the rules, and make it a required vote (anyone who didn't would be ignored; only those voting would be counted in the total). That's probably against their formal rules, but I'd risk it anyway. The alternative is to shut down the organization. It's not like trying to game to process the way Microsoft did is within the rules either. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
jdixon - I'm a bettin' a reasonable solution exists, though I could be wrong. I can't believe that committees are islands unto themselves. The folks a level up must have some kind of authority to make things right. We need to be careful about presuming that a deliberate pace = nothing happening. After all, a process that allowed the central body to interfere too easily with the workings of a committee would also be a bad thing. |
| GDStewart Oct 17, 2007 2:35 PM EDT |
I posted this last night on Linux Today: According to an post on Slashdot: "If you read the actual ISO rules [iso.org], it's clear they can deal with this easily enough." * 1.7.4 A technical committee or subcommittee secretariat shall notify the Chief Executive Officer if a P-member of that technical committee or subcommittee has been persistently inactive and has failed to make a contribution to 2 consecutive meetings, either by direct participation or by correspondence, or has failed to vote on questions submitted for voting within the technical committee or subcommittee (such as new work item proposals). Upon receipt of such a notification, the Chief Executive Officer shall remind the national body of its obligation to take an active part in the work of the technical committee or subcommittee. In the absence of a satisfactory response to this reminder, the national body shall automatically have its status changed to that of O-member. A national body having its status so changed may, after a period of 12 months, indicate to the Chief Executive Officer that it wishes to regain P-membership of the committee, in which case this shall be granted. * 1.7.5 If a P-member of a technical committee or subcommittee fails to vote on an enquiry draft or final draft International Standard prepared by the respective committee, the Chief Executive Officer shall remind the national body of its obligation to vote. In the absence of a satisfactory response to this reminder, the national body shall automatically have its status changed to that of O-member. A national body having its status so changed may, after a period of twelve months, indicate to the Chief Executive Officer that it wishes to regain P membership of the committee, in which case this shall be granted. What is not clear to me is does this only apply to a specific technical committee or subcommitee i.e. OOXML "standard" meetings/votes. Or does it apply if they do not participate in any other standards meetings/votes? Also note that there is a 12 month wait before "demoted " O-members can request to be "promoted" to being a P-member again. |
| azerthoth Oct 17, 2007 4:25 PM EDT |
I like that, and to turn the dirty trick on it's head, demote all of them in one fell swoop at the minimum amount of time allowed, what ever that is. Preferably the morning of the vote. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!