Increase size Decrease size Revert styles to default
Search

odd_parity

Pairing in progress...

Show the panel
Battle for the transparency PDF Print E-mail

Written by Radoslav Dejanović, on 12-11-2007 23:04

Views : 12072    

Favoured : 345

Published in : , English language

It's been a while now, and I'm still trying to enforce HZN (Croatian national standards body, or CSI) to disclose the information on members of their TC that voted unconditional yes for Microsoft OOXML. (more about that on Croatian blog Fuzzy on www.linux.hr)
It's no more about OOXML. It's about transparency, about my right to know who are the people that declare standards, and about my right to hold them responsible for their actions.
They're stubborn. So am I. I have reached the point where the only sensible thing to do is to - sue them. Which is what I'm set up to. I have a law on my side, they have the bureaucracy on their. And a powerful ally that woudn't really want to have it's proposed standard rejected.
Who's going to win? I'm not sure. What I am about to do is to put up a good fight. Even if I lose, I might set the path for someone with more luck/persistence to carry on for the noble cause of government transparency.

P.S. just as a side note: Office for e-Croatia (government body) made official request for approval of PDF and ODF as national standards in April, and this is still being held cold; I wonder if there's someone waiting for OOXML to get "ISO-ized" to push it as a national standard instead of the other two?
Quote this article in website Favoured Print Send to friend Save this to del.icio.us

Users' Comments  RSS feed comment
 

Average user rating

   (0 vote)

  

Display 5 of 5 comments

1. 13-11-2007 16:49

I guess PUBLIC doesnt equate to OPEN
I wish you good luck!!! 
 
It's interesting to note how so many "public" bodies try so hard to cover up or legitimize dealings that would never survive the light of day without a spin master at the helm. 
 
I thought the reason organizations and most democratic elected governments were noted as "public" or working in the "public interest" meant that transparancy and openess were the prime interest...not the opposite. 
 
I once again must remember to remove my rose colored glasses upon waking 8)
Guest, IP: 192.85.50.1
John Wormer

2. 13-11-2007 21:31

http://www.theopensourcerer.com
Good Luck. I'll give you a mention on my blog... 
 
Alan
Guest, IP: 85.210.176.9
Alan Lord

3. 14-11-2007 16:27

Pro Audio Engineer
The very best of luck . I hope you get a result without spending half your life on it . Conor .
Guest, IP: 80.225.201.131
C Caulfield

4. 15-11-2007 01:58

We'd also love code transparency
I've always been disappointed by how many standards bodies (and American courts) are either politicized or commercialized. Ecma really didn't bother to do its job with MS-OOXML and as a result or rubber-stamping the spec, it has been a global disaster for Microsoft. Even if it's eventually approved, it will have no transparency of its actual code (compared to the published spec). 
 
Good luck, indeed!
Guest, IP: 216.229.79.10
Zaine Ridling

5. 17-11-2007 07:25

YES - YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING
You're absolutely right! ANd you have inspired me. I think I will find a way to do the same for all the standards bodies that voted no. I would like to see who and understand how. Of course I don;t expect to be surprised to find IBM behind all this. Dear IBM - great to see you get on the open stds bandwagon, even if you are shamelessly abusing. Please let me know when you will open up your main frame business and base that on open standards while you're at it. Thx 
 
OOXML Supporter
Guest, IP: 66.235.42.202
OOXML Supporter

Display 5 of 5 comments

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.5 © 2007-2010 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
Last Updated ( Monday, 12 November 2007 )
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]