Re: [xml-dev] "Open XML" et al... Blech... Re: [xml-dev] Microsoftbuys

[Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>]

Len Bullard wrote:
> Process is ALL you have.  If MS despite their bungling plays to the 
> process in accordance with the process, then they implement products 
> that meet the market needs, they win fairly.   If in the face of 
> competition, companies like IBM, Red Hat, Sun and others put FUD on 
> the street, fund the attacks, and encourage the pile on in the face of 
> process, then they are the villains in this piece.   I've friends in 
> all of those companies but at some point the ethics have to match the 
> actions or the willingness to submit to process dies.  The magic dies.  
>
>  
>
> So here we are waiting for comments to be resolved. 
>

Standards bodies are supposed to make decisions. Process is a way of 
making decisions. "Yes" and "no" are both examples of decisions that a 
standards body might legitimately make. Somehow, you seem to imply that 
"no" is not a valid decision.

Standard bodies are supposed to reach agreement among the major players. 
Sometimes, when one company proposes something,  it doesn't yet 
represent agreement. Sometimes objections by the other major players are 
an indication that you don't yet have agreement. Usually, parties on all 
sides have commercial interests. A standards body has to be extremely 
careful that players on either side of a controversy are not allowed to 
play games like the ones we've seen lately.

As far as I can tell, resolving the comments successfully would require 
significant changes to the documents, and I'm not sure that's allowed 
under Fast Track rules.

Jonathan