void life(void)

Someone can give me the result of 2 + 2? This is the point. If JTC1 has made this question, would be like this: 2 + 2 = 6 ?

Seeing that there are no strict rules or criteria that lead the evaluation on countries (NBs) , everything turn to a mess. There are only the JTC1 Directives, but in fact they have been ignored even by themselves…

In theory all NBs should have made a technical analysis and found that 2 + 2 = 4 (not 6), and there appears to lack of criteria that allows huge aberrations on such technical decision:

1 - Part of NBs, decided by CONSENSUS (which for ISO means “no reasoned opposition”), and therefore spend hours and hours discussing and deciding vote NO, because one cannot simply technically justify the fact that 2 + 2 is 6 ! In most NBs where this occurred, the vote was NO.

2 - Part of NBs decide by vote. Here is where the things gets really freak… Part of its members are on the side of the YES and part on the NO side, simply ignoring any and all technical analysis made, deciding “by vote” an entirely technical issue like that, obvious and blatant as this. The result can not be worse: The one that has more “influence” wins more votes (to the shame of those who know that 2 + 2 = 4). In the vast majority of NBs where it occurred, the vote was YES.

3 - Part of NBs, decide to stay out of the decision and vote abstention. Interesting to note that on this group, the majority has come to debate but the final decision (in some cases, a single individual “opinion”) was meet any special interest and simply not be “bad with anyone”.

With such compatible criteria, one can really believe on the outcome of this vote? Is the “good technique” has been taken seriously? It would be better to analyse NB by NB, raise the list of participating companies and reach a conclusion (that is, who was the great responsible for doing the world unaware that 2 + 2 = 4)? Unfortunately this could not be done because the “cloak” of “non-disclosure” is on various NBs (zero transparency and that is why things “abnormal” are occurring all over the world).

Talking about responsibility, and again after reading the JTC1 Directives several times on the past year and tried by all means that I have available (including the Brazilian NB), I really could not find good answers to the following questions (all decisions are taken against the JTC1 Directives, or at least, giving a very strange interpretation to them) :

1 - Why OpenXML was accepted by JTC1 without the acceptance by a SC (in this case the SC34) ?

2 - Why the 6 months of analysis and voting began without resolving the contradictions (indeed, most of them were SIMPLY IGNORED until today)?

3 - Why convene a BRM after a complete defeat (by the two voting criteria) as of September, with more than 3,500 technical problems presented? One can really believe that all this would be discussed and solved in just 5 days?

4 - Why you allowed a standard to go to the “final vote” IF THE FINAL TEXT WAS EVEN PRESENTED ?

The closest I came to answers to most of these questions is: The JTC1 decided to do so…

Seen that the JTC1 is formed by people, I really would like to know THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT DECIDED THOSE ISSUES.

Only with that we can start a real assessment of the facts. so… resolved (or not?).

Share/Save/Bookmark

2 Responses to “OpenXML: Criteria and Responsability”

  1. OpenXML: They really won? | void life(void)

    […] We’ve won also for showing to the whole world that problems are problems and that the “real technical decisions” are really simple ones, almost Boolean (or right or wrong … the more or less is marketing …no need to vote… yes or no, as I’ve commented here). […]

  2. OpenXML: Want to understand how they worked? | void life(void)

    […] I in a previous post I’ve said that was necessary the list of organizations that were parts of the committees, now […]

Deixe seu comentário

Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme developed with WordPress Theme Generator.
Creative Commons License