Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:54 +0200, bryan rasmussen wrote: > I think that Rick saying each of these things in turn is no problem is > probably explainable by the simple fact that he has been castigated by > anti-ms forces on this issue and perhaps is reflexively likely to > think the anti-ms side is wrong. Stockholm Syndrome :-) Or perhaps Hanging Chad Syndrome... On Bryan's points: 1) Participation is good. The people who should *not* participate in a standards effort are the people who don't want that standard and have a rival standard of their own: unless they play things very carefully they may not meet the good faith obligation that are necessary for involvement, not to mention anti-trust issues. People who like Phillips head screwdrivers should not try to derail the ISO Standard for Torx screw heads and then preach about the inappropriateness of the what the other side is doing. 2) Coordination across 50 to 100 countries is not a trivial task, and it is not surprising to me if there is a slip up sooner or later, where someone has not been communicated to. What matters is whether it is dealt with transparently, promptly and properly. As far as I know it was. 3) AFAIK the issues are unrelated. An example of correct procedure being followed by SIS is being taken as a sign of something nefarious, without evidence. But certainly I think there is a bottom-line requirement of an assumption of good faith (trust but verify) on the part of other participants, when involved in standards-making. If someone says "I need this" you don't say "no you don't" or "that is only a small niche". If someone says "This was an honest mistake" you grumble "OK" (and count the forks) and get back to work. heers Rick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
