[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML?
Elliotte Harold said: > Several people have proposed that vendors be required to join the > process 45 days, six months, a year or whatever before the vote to avoid > these sorts of shenanigans. Many committees have a two or three session rule: you need to attend two sessions before being accredited and if you miss two or three you lose your accreditation and need to start again. Many committees scheduled extra meetings, so that rather than once every three months they met, say, every week. Why is the amount of time so special, if the aim is to prevent single-meeting participants? If the intent is to prevent single-interest participants, then time is more important, I suppose, but you are talking years. There is certainly scope for saying that people should not vote on issues where they were not present for the discussions, though. However, one way to handle that is to have fixed membership task forces. The downside (Portugal) is that then it is difficult for people who find out about things late or whose interest was not known at the start to participate. > Anyone (natural person, not company) voting on a proposed standard > should be required to affirm, under oath, that either: > > 1. They have read the entire standard and feel they understand what it > says. > > or > > 2. They have read the entire standard, and feel that it is > incomprehensible in significant respects. That is not the way committees work. There is a division of expertise, energy, interests and labour. So I might know about publishing and you might know about programming, and we tend contribute and concentrate on our areas of expertise etc. In the Schematron standard, we have a (hopefully) formal description using predicate logic, and under your rules that would not be allowed, it seems. Would every reviewer would have to learn predicate logic to a level to be able to find errors? Must every reviewer become an expert in XML Schemas for any standard that has a schema? IMHO it does not matter that each reviewer understands all parts, or even that anybody on a particular national body understands parts that don't relate to that National Body's interests, all that matters is that every part has adequate review in toto. Division of labour. Furthermore, people or National Bodies review from different angles: they have different requirements and technical principles. So one person might review based on internationalization issues, and just skip the parts that are not relevant. It is these multiple nets that are important: a line-by-line approach is OK but unsystematic and can be much more haphazard than people think. You can end up with lots of trivial changes while the important or systematic ones are left dangling. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|