Notes2Self.net

Stephen McGibbon's Web Journal
Voices for Innovation is a global community working together to shape the technology policy debate. We want every voice heard. Join now and make a difference.

Recent comments

Reading

Patrick Durusau's "non-standard guide to standards behaviour"

Patrick's latest post proposes some sarcastic rules for "behaviour in standards committees and standards making in general":-

image

He goes on to say:-

Writing useful standards requires us to move beyond such behaviours.

I have not included examples of those behaviours because that simply starts the cycle all over again. We need to dust ourselves off and resolve to do better in the future and then simply to do so.

There is no profit (if you are of the commercial persuasion) or future (if you are one of the save the world types) or good work (if you are simply trying to write good standards) in pawing over old hurts.

All that is required is today, and only for today, for each of us to not engage in these behaviours. I can't change yesterday and I won't promise tomorrow. All I can do anything about is today. What others do doesn't matter as I am only answerable for my own conduct.

Posted: Apr 01 2008, 02:11 AM by Stephen McGibbon | with 9 comment(s)
Filed under:

Comments

jack waldron said:

I like Patrick's previous pdf, which talks about some of the irregularities of the process, and how OOXML shouldn't be punished because of the actions of people doing things they shouldn't have in order to get OOXMl passed as a standard. Ok, I'm all for not punishing OOXML, let's just punish the people responsible. How do we punish the people responsible? Deny OOXML from becoming a standard, or at least until it is fully functional. First off let's see SpaceLikeWord95 (or whatever it was) actually defined so it can be implemented by someone other than MS. Personally, I'll never use it, because I use ODF.

# April 1, 2008 8:05 PM

Stephen McGibbon said:

Hi Jack, which one is that? Is it here?

A Non-Standard Guide to Standards Behavior Thoughts on how we should act after the OpenXML ballot and in general.

Ad Hoc Rules, Process Failures and OpenXML Should the rule making and process failures of others condemn OpenXML?

Who Loses if OpenXML Loses? Thoughts on what OpenDocument loses if OpenXML loses.

The 6,000 Page Myth OpenXML has problems but fear mongering based on its purported size isn't helping to solve them.

"All Their Eternity Is To Butt and Bray" Further thoughts on why my thinking changed on OpenXML.

Genies, Peasants and NOOXML Thoughts on NOOXML and the V1 Recommendation on DIS 29500.

On the Importance of Being Heard The Important Lesson of the BRM on DIS 29500.

Confusion, Standards and OpenXML A preliminary response to Updegrove's apocalyptic vision concerning OpenXML.

Co-Evolving OpenXML and OpenDocument Format Thoughts on a productive way forward in discussing OpenXML and OpenDocument Format.

OpenXML: A Poster Child for Open Standards Development? Thoughts on the progress of OpenXML towards an open development model.

And did you see any of the responses from Ecma to comments about compatibility settings?

You might also like to look at this post, from Brian Jones, Jack.

# April 1, 2008 8:09 PM

toto said:

Don't worry your name has been tainted by Microsoft in the opensource world. It's too bad but it's the reality. I hope that Microsoft paid you well.

# April 1, 2008 10:15 PM

Stephen McGibbon said:

Hi "toto". I think you might be under the impression that this is Patrick's site (see link above).

It's not I am afraid. But congratulations I think you hit point 7 well!

# April 1, 2008 10:39 PM

John Wilson said:

Patrick, if nothing else, seems to enjoy pouring more fuel on the burning bridge which he set alight.

Sacrastically, of course, he has broken each and every one of his 7 rules.  Nothing like hypocracy, is there?

Oh well.  We're kinda stuck now and it's time to be beyond anger.  It's not time to forget.  

No matter what Microsoft says they are not open source, open standards friendly.

Patrick is stuck with what he did and what went around will, in due time, come around.  In a way, I'm sorry for him.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of OOXML now because not even Microsoft has a fully compliant implementation of it nor are they ever promising one.

ttfn

John

# April 1, 2008 11:53 PM

Benbow said:

Sorry, but creating a disaster and then saying "We must draw a line under it and carry on."  is the refuge of a career politician.

# April 2, 2008 1:20 AM

James Plamondon said:

Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.

I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.

Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:

   -- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

   -- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

# April 2, 2008 1:49 AM

Peter Read said:

Like lack of implementation matters....

Boss: So what's this docx format?

MS sales: it's an ISO Standard

Boss: Sign me up

# April 2, 2008 6:52 AM

Chuck said:

That's the thing that really confuses the *whatever* out of me.  This is supposed to be a "compatibility" standard, but not even Microsoft has implemented it.  People THINK that, "what Office 200x puts out is OOXML," but it ISN'T.

So, if you "correctly" implement the entire gawd-awful thing, then you will not be compliant with Office 200x.  Sheesh.

# April 3, 2008 12:17 AM