On Tuesday 28 August 2007 17:38:41 Anton wrote: > now, the NS might move the date (2th Sep) and have 30 more days to decide.
I think there is no change from the 2nd Sep ISO voting date. One of the vendors is playing dirty games by planting outright lies , such as: # In the 30-day contradiction period, one NB was told that the stated deadline from ISO had been extended and that they actually had two more weeks to debate before sending in their response. If they had listened to this advice, this NB would have missed the deadline and their comments would have been disregarded. # Another NB was told that they were not allowed to vote in the 5-month ballot because they had not participated in the contradiction period. This is totally false and has no basis in JTC1 Directives or past practice. Luckily this NB decided to check the facts for themselves. # Several NB's were told that JTC1 had resolved all contradiction concerns with OOXML and that these issues therefore cannot be raised again in the 5-month ballot. This is utterly false. No one at JTC1 has made such a determination. # Several NB's have been asked not to submit comments to JTC1 at all, but to send them directly to Ecma. (Yeah, right. Just sign your absentee ballot and give it to me. I'll make sure it gets in the mail) # Many NB's are being asked to throw away their right to a conditional approval position by voting Approval on a specification they they believe is full of defects that must be fixed, even though JTC1 Directives clearly states that "Conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote." # Many NB's are being persuaded to vote Approval with the promise that all of their comments will be "addressed at the BRM" without explaining that "addressing a comment" may entail little more than entering it in a Disposition of Comments Reports with the remark "No action taken". Read more at: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/08/disenfranchisement.html Regards Anand > Will SG/ML continue to play snake's game and publish results "as > everybody else (big brother?) have decided" or keep the word and have > their own good research and strong opinion "why yes/no"? > http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-17511/lies-damn-lies > > On 28/08/07, Harish Pillay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How did Singapore vote on OOXML? > > > > The ITSC met and voted last Friday. The committee, before the voting, > > agreed to keep the final results confidential until September 2nd. I > > will honour that. > > > > The Malaysian standards body has also voted - this past Monday. They > > too have decided to keep the results confidential till September 2nd. > > > > Harish \\ _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
