IBM Threatens To Leave ISO Over OOXML Brouhaha 200
barnackle writes "In addition to threatening to leave certain standards organizations over the OOXML shenanigans, IBM created new guidelines for its own participation in those organizations in an attempt to pressure the ISO and ECMA to be more fair in their approval procedures."
Please help (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, but does it really matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Influence (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member. This is particularly true of a 'Big Player' like IBM who will carry a lot of clout.
'Outsiders' can be discounted far more easily as they are simply not part of the process, and could therefore be said to be irrelevant.
IBM should collaborate with other large firms (but presumably not Microsoft) to enforce due diligence in future decisions.
IBM logo in the summary looks more beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Influence (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know much about the ISO process other than what I read here on Slashdot. But from what I gathered, big companies don't "carry a lot of clout" with ISO unless they bribe other smaller companies to join and vote with them.
It seems like a case where the most disreputable company with the most money wins. IBM's only choice then is to either play the game the way Microsoft did, or to leave.
More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
Some countries are already making noises about not automatically adopting ISO standards. The more countries that adopt this "a la carte" approach to ISO, the more it will weaken ISO. The more countries that adopt the a la carte approach "until such time as ISO gets its act together" the more pressure there will be on ISO to get its act together.
Turn that around (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely IBM will have more influence over future ISO decisions if it remains a member.
And surely ISO will be able to stay more relevant if it can retain IBM as a member. Standards bodies can be discounted for more easily if "Big Players" are simply not part of the process.
If IBM were pulling out simply because they weren't getting what they wanted, then the whole thing would seem childish. But when a standards body is approving bad standards because it's being manipulated/corrupted, and attempts to clean up the corruption are not being successful, then the appropriate thing for other "big players" to do is drop support for that standards body.
you heathen, with the mod point - yes you !! (Score:2, Insightful)
this post is offtopic. not parent.
though since you have modded faultily, this post has somewhat become on-topic.
now work on this paradox you just created and prepare a paper on it until monday, 09.45 sharp. i want pie charts in appendix.
Strike while the iron is hot (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM - and anyone else who cares to (and is in the position to) make a stance against the ISO's actions - must do it immediately and make it clear.
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not very accurate, and it is not very relevant to the topic at hand. Also, it is rather incendiary.
So the 'troll' mod may be undeserved, but if so only because 'flamebait' might be more accurate.
no. (Score:3, Insightful)
and we all know that from the stories of last 2 years on slashdot, even if not our own experiences, though ms fanbois may disagree.
Re:Settle down now.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards."
Sure, that's why they were investigated by the DOJ for a decade.
The difference between IBM and MS is that IBM knew how to play the game with politicians before the investigation started. MS made the mistake of thinking they didn't need to grease any palms. They know better now.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why was this modded "troll"? Would you mod IBM "troll" too?
Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw letting it get its act together. One of the smaller standards bodies will become the de facto, and ISO's head can be placed on a pole in the public square as a reminder.
Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no. (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is more experienced at doing dirty footwork than IBM; they set that industry standard along with hundreds of others. That's what made the SCO thing so damn funny, and look at the outcome there...They didn't just not lose, they annihilated the poor bastards. Now remember who was using their money to prop up SCO? Microsoft. This is an old feud.
No, the reason IBM didn't blow a ton of money on it is because they had nothing to lose. Their desktop suite is a hobby project, whereas Microsoft's is their life blood. Now IBM is throwing their weight around, and may end up getting to eat their cake and have it too, all for a piddly outlay of cash.
Who looks smart now?
MS investigate for 20 years (Score:1, Insightful)
and STILL not obeying the courts.
I think MS wins the "dirty little shitbag" contest.
PS as for MS using IBM's leaving as a stick to beat them with, when MS has shit in the pool, stop playing in it. m'kay?
Re:Turn that around (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about de-emphasizing formal standards. Formal standards serve some pretty important purposes, which is exactly why so much money is at stake. I think it's one of those situations where something has to be done, but because it *is* so important, there are lots of people who will want to game the system. Therefore it's important to root out corruption, and keep the system clean and transparent. If you do somehow get to the point where the system is so corrupt that it can't be fixed, and the system is so corrupt that it isn't doing what it was set up to do, then you throw it out and make a new one.
You know, like a government.
Re:Not all as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is you're unable to separate the message from the messenger?
It doesn't matter a damn if IBM owns and operates Groklaw if the information on it is correct and stands up to scrutiny. To date, it has. So what's the problem?
In my opinion, the case of Groklaw is a great example of the public benefit of anonymous speech. If she had outed herself she might have been sued, pulled into court, lost her job, even physically harrassed. But by keeping her anonymity - and her integrity - she's been able to make a pretty big impact in the case, at least to us nerds who care about such things. She did exactly the right thing.
Names are meaningless. And even if you had it, what good what that do? What are you going to do, drive to that address, demand to see her bank statement to ensure there's no payments from IBM?
Where the information comes from is irrelevant. The quality of the information is the only thing that matters. Groklaw has stood the test of time, in my opinion, so you're doing yourself a disservice by downrating it on that basis.
Re:no. (Score:3, Insightful)
and they were once so good
I prefer to think they were so good at it, even they were ashamed by themselves and turned it round.
Some court case and anti-trust breakup thing might have had a hand in it too.
Re:IBM can't "leave ISO" (Score:5, Insightful)
And another "fascinating" comment by someone who did not RTFA and has no knowledge of the subject.
The /. title changed it to "ISO" instead of "Standards Bodies". That said the TFA did only reference ISO and ECMA, of which IBM is in fact a member.
And ECMA is a member of ISO. So is ANSI, of which you might think IBM is part of? And you'd actually be right.
You said yourself, ISO is comprised of various national standards bodies. Who do you think comprises these bodies? Fairies? ISO is comprised of groups that IBM is a member of. Therefore is it reasonable to state that IBM as a member of several of the bodies that comprise ISO is thus a member of ISO. As such, they can actually leave the ISO by leaving the standards bodies that comprise ISO.
Furthermore nearly every national standards body is in fact incorporated or whatever their country equivalent is. As such, your assertion that "there is no concept of corporate membership" is demonstrably false. ANSI is a not-for-profit U.S. corporation, and is a member of ISO.
QED.
Re:Not all as it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not question Groklaw as a source at all.
That's right. You flat out rejected Groklaw as a source due to PJ's anonymity, rather than grant it any benefit of the doubt given PJ's track record. That's far more disingenuous than merely raising unfounded questions about Groklaw's corporate connections.
Re:More importantly, if some governments withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
A valid point, but once the well has been poisoned, it's folly to keep drinking it. And the analogy breaks down in an important aspect - the Well let itself be poisoned in return for cash. This should be a lesson to other wells everywhere.
But I don't disagree with what you say.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of companies conform to ISO standards for two reasons:
The first being that it brings in more money. Once you're ISO certified, people take you a little more seriously.
Secondly, it really helps companies that are disorganized with their documentation to be a whole lot more organized, which has a lot of huge benefits.
Re:Not all as it seems (Score:3, Insightful)
This thread has gotten pretty confused (yeah, I must be new here...) Ignoring who said what, there are two important issues at stake: (1) is Groklaw a good source, and (2) is IBM a good source? There is a third unimportant issue: (3) is Groklaw speaking for IBM?
The answers are: (1) yes, (2) not really, and (3) who cares.
Assume for the sake of argument that Groklaw is part of IBM. IBM ain't stupid, they understand their audience, and they know that we perceive a difference between independent information and corporate spin. They understand the benefit of preserving Groklaw as a clean source of information, so that it can be perceived as having integrity. If IBM wants to lie, they can pay an advertising agency to do it.
The point is that you can (for the time being) trust Groklaw even if they are a face of IBM, because it's in IBM's interest to keep them good.
Basically, when the facts make me look good, I would always rather somebody else tell them, even if she criticises me from time to time. If I have to feed her to keep the news coming, well that kind of sucks, but it is better to do that at arm's length than to try telling people how good I am myself.
If you desperate geeks still don't like it, the concept is "wingman."
Re:ISO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ISO? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still wonder if this is exactly what Microsoft wanted all along.
So many IT companies purporting to adhere to ISO standard this and that, against which MS, the king of proprietary, cannot compete. Much better to pull the rug out from under them by discrediting the standards body they are accredited against.
Re:ISO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only on the surface.
In my experience, a company who is not organized attempting to become ISO certification just slathers a lot of lipstick on a pig, and it's also my experience that the ISO auditors fall for it every damned time.
As an engineer who has to pay lip service to a few ISO standards, but is given no resources to actually fulfill the spirit of the processes, it's all a bunch of bullshit.
(CMMI is even worse - that takes a ton more effort and I've yet to see a company really do it correctly. I'm sure some of them have to exist, but most either document every nanosecond of work (and can't use it in any meaningful way) or don't document anything but still try to get through their audit with a level 3 or 4 and then stop doing it again for another 2 years until they need recertified. Christ I need a new job.)