[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [odf-adoption] Fast Track approval anyway
Paul, thank you so much for this answer. What I can see from that is the secretary general of the ISO acted legally and perhaps in "bona fide" as he saw the overwhelming presence of Microsoft at a level the proponents of the real standard (ODF) were never able to reach. Also, this change in that section at the last minute is troubling. Best, Charles. marbux a écrit : > The relevant JTC1 Directives section was changed on February 20. Now > draft standards can proceed on the fast track despite any > contradictions. > > The new section 13.4 has this language: > > "If a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall > make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month > period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the > NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem > necessary. A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be > convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if required. > > "If the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for > fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be > considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document, to > be processed as a new proposal. > > "If the resolution results in no change to the document or if a > resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot > commences immediately after such a determination is made." > > So, whereas the old version allowed for fast tracks to be essentially > halted by irreconcilably contradictions, the new version simply says > that if there is no agreement, then simply ignore the contradictions > and go on with the 5-month ballot anyways. This seems to be a major > transfer of power from NB's to Fast Track submittors like Ecma, making > the contradiction phase a toothless waste of time. > > It also appears to conflict mightily with the Agreement on Technical > Barriers to Trade, which, inter alia, requires that standards not even > be prepared if they would create unnecessary obstacles to > international trade and requires that the standardization process > provide a meaningful early opportunity for national bodies to object > to the preparation of standards that would create such obstacles. > > The silver lining in the dark cloud might be that the process probably > won't be dragged out for years if Ecma 376 stays on the fast track. We > should have an up or down final ballot about five months from now. > > Best regards, > > Marbux > > On 3/13/07, Charles-H. Schulz <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com> wrote: >> Hell all, >> >> am I missing something? >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012860&intsrc=news_ts_head >> >> >> If anyone would like to comment, I'd love to hear his/her comments on >> that. >> >> Best, >> Charles. >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]