The Swedish OOXML vote has been declared invalid! The Swedish Standards Institute has tonight issued a press release where they declared this weeks earlier vote regarding OOXML as invalid and by that Sweden don't have any official position regarding OOXML any more.
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14874/2/ On 8/28/07, Anand Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
