There is no end, but addition: Alex Brown's weblog http://www.adjb.net/index.php Copyright 2008, Alex Brown Alex Brown en-US SPHPBLOG 0.4.8 OOXML Appeal Synchronicity http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080709-160624 published a leaked ISO document to the web regarding the ongoing appeals over the 29500 project. Reading it, it is clearly not (as originally reported) the recommendation of the ISO TMB, but recommendations to the TMB. The appeals process continues.

Bearing in mind the fuss that was made about "form letters" earlier in the project, something new that immediately leaps off the pages is some common text in two of the appeals:

From SABS (South Africa; letter dated 22 May) :

we challenge the validity of a process that, from beginning to end, required all parties involved to analyze far too much information in far too little time, involved a BRM that did not remotely provide enough time to perform the appointed purpose of that procedure, and for which an arbitrary time limitation was imposed to discuss and resolve a significant number of substantial responses, despite the Directives not requiring any such limitation as to duration.

From FONDONORMA (Venezuela; letter dated 30 May):

Venezuela challenges the validity of a process that, from beginning to end, required all parties involved to analyze far too much information in far too little time, involve a BRM that by far did not provide enough time to perform the appointed purpose of that procedure, and for which an arbitrary time limitation was imposed to discuss and resolve a significant number of substantial responses, despite the Directives not requiring any such limitation as to duration.

Both NBs were asked to specify what specific remedial actions they were seeking and ISO got (among other things), from Venezuela (letter dated 23 June):

Change the title of DIS 29500 to "Converting legacy Microsoft documents to Office Open XML" in order to reflect the fact that it is only intended to convert such legacy documents and is not intended to conflict with ISO/IEC 26300. This change should be made to he scope of the DIS as well.

and from South Africa (letter dated 24 June)

We request that the title of DIS 29500 be changed to "Converting legacy Microsoft documents to Office Open XML" in order to reflect the fact that it is only intended to convert such legacy documents and is not intended to conflict with ISO/IEC 26300 [...]

As with the "duplicate" comments submitted in the 29500 letter ballot, it's difficult to know how this happened. Is one country copying the other, or is there a common source for both? One would have thought any self-respecting standards body would not brazenly crib the text of an appeal (an appeal!) from outside its own walls ...

- Alex.]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080709-160624 Alex Brown Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:06:24 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=07&entry=entry080709-160624 ISO Secretary General on OOXML http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080627-124839 made some press comments about the OOXML standardisation project, which make interesting reading for those who have been following along. After noting the wrong-headedness of much of the anti-ISO commentary, he is quoted as saying of the standards process:

The experience with ISO/IEC 29500, along with the results of other standards development activities, will indeed assist in determining whether further continued improvements should be made.

This is surely the key point: where there are improvements to be made, then the system admits for that change.

It is also noted that ISO/IEC 29500 is not the first controversial project ISO has had to deal with. I am told by ISO veterans that the recent fuss was mild compared to that surrounding ISO 10990-4, for example...]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080627-124839 Alex Brown Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:48:39 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080627-124839 OOXML Hit into the Long Grass http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080612-062013 ODF – news?
The latest issue of the ODF Alliance Newsletter has been published (PDF) and predictably enough the lead story is on … OOXML (their favourite topic).

The (I thought) exciting news that Microsoft has announced upcoming support for ODF in its Office products is relegated to second place and gets the rather grudging headline “ODF Alliance calls on Microsoft to act on its commitment to implement support for ODF”. Ah – I didn’t realise the real story here was the statement the ODF Alliance had issued. Being an ODF supporter gets a bit confusing sometimes.

Anyway, the newsletter’s lead story mentions that four countries have appealed to ISO and IEC (as confirmed by the official press release) and adds for good measure that Denmark has “protested” and that there is legal action in the UK.

The appeals of South Africa, Brazil, India and Venezuela are for real, and the texts of two of these appeals are spread widely over the web (I believe Brazil’s text reached the blogs even before it reached Geneva).

Denmark has not appealed. What appears to have happened in Denmark is that an open source lobby group has written a letter to the Danish Standards body. That is not “Denmark protesting”.

And in the UK there have been developments in the so-called “legal challenge” to BSI’s decision on DIS 29500 …

Singeing the King of Spin’s Beard


What has happened in the UK is fairly well documented. In September 2007 the UK, as a JTC 1 P-member, voted on DIS 29500 and submitted a record-breaking 635 comments outlining technical faults. The (officially confidential) details of that September ballot’s votes have been widely leaked on the web showing the UK’s vote of disapproval at that time.

After the BRM, and following the vote modification process earlier this year, BSI published a FAQ explaining what had just happened. In this it stated:

BSI British Standards exercised its right to vote based on the recommendation of its technical experts who are members of IST/41. IST/41 reached a consensus decision and BSI voted in accordance with the committee’s recommendation.

A few days prior to this a report of IST/41’s meeting had appeared on The Register, leaked by persons unknown, apparently in an effort to “smoke out” (read intimidate) the committee members. Angry and/or veiledly threatening emails to committee members duly flowed, but overall the leak had no effect in changing any positions. (But who knows how the suggestion that the UK was changing its vote might have been received in other countries – the leaker may have unwittingly given DIS 29500 a boost!)

Following the end of the voting process, the UK Unix Users Group (UKUUG) issued a press release attacking BSI. The press release began:

“Last week BSI (British Standards Institution) decided to approve the fast tracking of the Microsoft sponsored OOXML format (DIS29500)”

and the UKUUG chairman, Alain Williams, provided the following quotation:

“We are very disappointed that BSI has chosen to take this decision against the advice of its technical committee.”

– pretty much a direct accusation that the BSI’s own published statements on DIS 29500 were untrue.

Now the UKUUG clearly looks upon itself as a pretty serious organisation. Its press release – not short on pomp – states that it “values intelligence, thoughtfulness and long-term thinking rather than immediacy and froth.”

In that light there are a number of things that are very puzzling about the UKUUG’s recent behaviour. Most of this stems from the fact that UKUUG was a member of IST/41, the very technical committee which recommended the final UK position on DIS 29500.

So, one might ask:

  • Why is a Unix (Unix!) user group (user group!) so interested in DIS 29500 anyway?
  • Why are its members’ funds being used to finance a preposterous legal action (their site rather desperately asks: “If you're looking to support UKUUG in it's [sic] efforts to examine the BSI's OOXML decision, you can join UKUUG or make a donation via paypal to paypal@ukuug.org.”)
  • Even allowing UKUUG is legitimately interested, why did it not send (as it should have) a representative to the crucial meeting on DIS 29500 that decided the committee’s position? That was how it could have lodged its members’ views.
  • Having disenfranchised its members and failed to influence the process legitimately in the meeting (UKUUG attendance would have made a decisive difference, I have no doubt), why then attempt to influence the process externally?
  • Why question the veracity of BSI’s statements, when as a group UKUUG is entitled access to all and any documents and records which would clearly show it the truth of the matter?

Predictably, when the UKUUG’s “legal challenge” eventually found its way in front of a judge, it got short shrift. The Inquirer reports:

Mr Justice Lloyd Jones rejected the UKUUG's application for a judicial review last Thursday, giving the group until the break of dawn this Friday to raise a legal fund for an appeal. “This application does not disclose any arguable breach of the procedures of BSI or of rules of procedural fairness,” said Justice Jones on Thursday. “In any event, the application is academic in light of the adoption of the new standard by ISO,” he added.

This brings a decisive an end to some decidedly rum behaviour from the purportedly “intelligent and thoughtful” organization that is UKUUG, leaving its members to ask some interesting questions of its leadership.

International Appeals


The fate of the internal UK appeal foreshadows (I suspect) what will happen with the International ones. I believe they will be considered properly; but they will achieve nothing. In fact worse, they will be harmful: Patrick Durusau has written how their net effect will be to distract from needed reform of the JTC 1 standardisation process. The delay in publishing ISO/IEC 29500 will also delay its much needed maintenance and frustrate the very large number of countries who voted to approve DIS 29500 on the basis that it would come under an SC 34 maintenance regime.

Ultimately the balance needs to be got right. I believe the legitimate concerns of the protesting NBs should be heard and acknowledged, but that unless substantial new evidence emerges in this exercise, we should all move forward without further undue delay. It will benefit nobody to go through a lengthy exercise of paying lip service to insubstantial complaints. In that case, okay, these four countries may be mollified – but the overwhelming majority of other countries who expended so much effort in approving ISO/IEC 29500 will look on with increasing exasperation if it becomes apparent the appeals process is nothing more than a drawn-out diplomatic fudge. The multi-month appeals time frames being talked of are completely out of touch with modern ICT standardisation realities, let alone any conception of a “Fast Track” that still remains.

In any case, the appeals have certainly not distracted NBs from continuing to notice that the text of the (pending) ISO/IEC 29500 Standard has not been circulated to them, as the JTC 1 Directives clearly require. They have also noticed that the existence of appeals is no excuse for the non-appearance of this text.

It is to be hoped the JTC 1 NBs will take steps at the next JTC 1 plenary to curtail the power of the standards mandarins and issue instructions to circulate the revised text.

- Alex.]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080612-062013 Alex Brown Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:20:13 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080612-062013 Day conference on OOXML and ODF http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080602-161307

XML UK are running a day conference entitled “XML in the Office” on Thursday 26 June at Reading Town Hall. My own presentation outline promises:

The last two years have seen what some have called a “document format war” as first the OpenDocument Format (ODF) and then Office Open XML (OOXML) progressed through various standards bodies. This presentation will cut through the thickets of misinformation and confusion to give a clear description of what really happened during this fraught period, and make some predictions about what it likely to happen next.

Anybody interested in the XML technology of OOXML and ODF should attend this event (and there will be no doubt be some talk about standardisation too, since XML UK fielded many of the technical experts that contributed to the UK's thorough National review of OOXML).

Registration form here. Hurry while there's space!

Call for Participation


Note there are still a couple of speaker slots and XML UK would welcome more participation. They'd be particularly interested in hearing from people who are willing and able to present on some ODF projects …]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080602-161307 Alex Brown Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:13:07 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080602-161307 20 May: a day of anniversaries http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080520-161544 the woman who became my wife. It is probably more on account of the latter than the former that we are drinking Champagne tonight. But perhaps now, as the DIS 29500 project draws to a conclusion, a little blogging reminiscence is in order …

DIS 29500: some personal reminiscences


Looking back over two years of blog entries, it is clear that the dominant theme has been the standardisation of OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500). One of the first blog entries reported from the May 2006 Seoul SC 34 plenary, the meeting at which it first became evident trouble was brewing.

I remember the meeting well, how there were so many unfamiliar faces present. It was the first time I met Ecma’s Jan van den Beld and IBM’s Rob Weir (to name but two). I remember how, at the opening plenary Jan gave a presentation about Ecma and spent some time explaining how the name “Ecma” was not an acronym but a brand name, and how its capitalisation was important. SC 34 old-timers shifted uncomfortably in their seats – wasn’t this just the sort of corporate bullshit one came to standards meetings to avoid? I remember how Rick Jelliffe (struggling with the crapware on his new Dell laptop) got tapped angrily on the shoulder when leaving the room and told it was no surprise he was a “Windows user”. I remember how a pleasant conversation over lunch was interrupted by somebody scraping their chair across the floor to join our table and launching into a monologue about how we should be wary of OOXML, as it contained secret metadata fields the FBI used to track people down and shoot them.

Clearly something was up, and the forces of unreason were on the move. It was at that meeting that I resolved to do what I could to resist these forces – a route which led me to become convenor of the DIS 29500 BRM.

Looking back at my first blog entry, my overall reaction to what I wrote is “+1”. A couple of extracts are interesting in the light of subsequent developments:

The kind of fast-tracking procedures used for ODF and mooted for OOXML give very little time for a small part-time volunteer group to give such bulky documents adequate scrutiny. There is no doubt ODF is, right now, less good than it would have been if subjected to the full rigours of ISO standardisation. With OOXML predicted to weigh in as a behemoth 7,000 page standard the danger that OOXML will be inadequately scrutinised is greater still. […] [It] is ultimately in nobody's interest if the standardisation process becomes devalued to the point where it is delivering technology standards which are done quicky, but which don't provide a solid and useful basis for implementers and users.

This one counted against my claim to become BRM convenor. I personally believed the accelerated standardisation process were unsuitable then, and the following two years have merely reinforced that belief. Personally, I look forward to the day they (PAS and Fast Track) are scrapped as part of root-and-branch reform of JTC 1.

Many [SC 34 members] judge that having a locked-down standard version of the Microsoft Office formats could bring huge benefits when it comes to working with Office documents.

In the end, this turned out (I believe) to be a decisive factor in the approval of DIS 29500. Ecma made the road very rocky though, by initially producing a text that was so lousy with faults.

It is standards bureaucrats in our national bodies (ISO member countries) who will vote. Sure, these people will often take advice from their country's SC34 members, but ultimately it is their votes, not ours, which count.

As it turned out, technical experts generally had rather more input into the process than I predicted. However in the light of decisions such as Norway’s this is an interesting anticipation of the fact that generally standards approval is ultimately a bureaucratic process.

I expect to continue to hear the standardisation attempts of Microsoft being characterised into a dumbed-down narrative of “ODF vs OpenXML”.

Oh yes, for sure! Though there are signs the debate is maturing and that when it comes to document formats people are beginning to realise “it’s just stuff”.

Where is the final DIS 29500 text?


The final DIS 29500 text was meant to be submitted by Ecma, and then distributed to National Bodies by 29 March 2008. Ecma duly submitted a text on time but this text has remained with ITTF. National Bodies are unhappy about this, and at the SC 34 Oslo meeting 12 countries passed a unanimous resolution calling for the release of the text – to no effect.

The description of the Fast Track process in the JTC 1 Directives is generally pretty sketchy, but the closing stages of it are particularly poorly thought-through. Is it really sensible if Ecma’s efforts become, unchecked, the final IS text? Personally, I'd say not, and that an all-important QA stage has been omitted. ITTF are perfectly entitled to make special rulings (as they evidently have done, and not for the first time in this project) on the authority of the Secretaries General of ISO and IEC. It would be more sane, I believe, for them to have invented an FDIS stage for this project and have NBs submit editorial corrections. However I can see that the politics and practicalities of the situation make this difficult – it’s not hard to imagine every fault in the text being screamed about by the anti camp as a reason for halting the entire project.

Ultimately the situation raises questions which go to the heart of the relationship between JTC 1 as an entity, and its member bodies. Just who is in charge, the nations or the officials? The unfortunate state of the Directives have meant there have been too many occasions when officials have had to step in and save the nations from the folly of the Directives that they themselves approved. Like ODF and OOXML the Directives is (literally) a standard, a standard that has faults. Unlike ODF and OOXML, however, I am beginning to believe the Directives have got to a state where they cannot be redeemed by evolution and amendment. It may be time to start again from scratch.]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080520-161544 Alex Brown Tue, 20 May 2008 15:15:44 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080520-161544 ISO committee takes full control of OOXML http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080409-221633
Harmony? Patrick Durusau, Jean Paoli and Brian Jones

Since my last blog entry a lot has happened. The big story of course is that DIS 29500 gathered enough votes to pass as an International Standard. Although the margin of votes in its favour was (surprisingly to me) reasonably comfortable, the overall mood of acceptance seems less of a "yip yip yahoo!" and perhaps more of a "well, alright". Everybody is now watching very carefully ...

Resolutions


Now however, the whole process moves forward into a much more significant stage. At the just-finished SC 34 meeting in Oslo a number of resolutions were passed relating to 29500. The most significant of these is resolution 4, "Creation of Ad Hoc Group 1 on ISO/IEC 29500 Maintenance", and it's worth looking at it in some detail. I will go through the complete resolution below with some explanation of my own ...

Background

SC 34 is the JTC 1 designated maintenance body for ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML file formats).

simply states the fact that JTC 1 have handed full responsibility for the standard over to SC 34. We then have some informative text setting out SC 34's current orientation:

The passage of ISO/IEC 29500 has instituted a new era of standards activity in SC 34 related to document formats. ISO/IEC 29500 does not represent an isolated phenomenon, since SC 34 is also responsible for ISO/IEC 26300 and for interoperability between these and other projects.

SC 34 envisages the creation of three distinct working groups that meet the needs of:
  1. ISO/IEC 29500
  2. ISO/IEC 26300
  3. Work on interoperability/harmonization between document format standards
and wishes to incorporate existing expertise on these standards.

For these reasons, SC 34 hereby establishes an ad hoc group pursuant to the JTC 1 Directives, clause 2.6.2, for investigating how the first of these groups may be set up most effectively.

So, SC 34 has a plan: it envisages taking control of OOXML, then setting up a maintance procedure for ODF, and then working on cross-standard initiatives. As the first part of effecting this plan it is setting up a temporary group (in ISO parlance an "ad hoc group") to investigate how OOXML can be maintained. The rest of the resolution sets out the terms of reference for this new investigative group.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the group are as follows:

The first of these terms of reference set out the task that the group is to perform:

The task to be completed by the group is to advise its convenor on creation of a document proposing structures and mechanisms for onward work on ISO/IEC IS29500. Onward work is defined as:
  • Maintenance as provided for by the JTC 1 Directives (in particular Section 15 - Maintenance of International Standards)
  • Handling new work items directly and exclusively related to ISO/IEC IS29500 (e.g. creation of new Parts of this Standard or evolution of this standard)

The proposal shall be drafted by the convenor as one or more resolutions (with supporting explanatory material) that may be discussed, revised and adopted by SC 34.

The ad hoc group should consider the following factors in making its recommendations to the convenor:

    a) A new working group should be created in SC 34 for the purpose of maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 pursuant to Section 15 of the JTC 1 Directives for standards maintenance.
    b) Editors and editing teams should be nominated as well as mechanisms for the nomination of editors and editing teams for ISO/IEC 29500.
    c) Transparency of process, consistent with JTC 1 Directives, is a goal of the recommended process.
    d) Consideration should be given to how Ecma and ISO/IEC versions of ISO/IEC 29500 may be best kept synchronized.
    e) The proposal should recommend ways in which onward work on ISO/IEC 29500 may be carried out in as timely a way as possible, without recourse to the accelerated mechanisms of PAS or Fast Track procedures.


There are several things of note here. First is that the group activities are limited to OOXML only, and that the group will be purely advisory. It will advise its convenor who will weigh up the advice and report back to SC 34 who will in turn make a decision that heeds (or ignores) that advice.

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is the list (items "a" to "e") in which SC 34 gives a "steer" to the group on how it should be thinking about OOXML maintenance. What we learn from this is that the group should try to come up with a process that ensures maintenance activities are fully staffed, as open as possible, that keep Ecma and ISO versions of the standard in sync, and which sticks to the full rigour of normal committee working without any Fast Track or PAS oddities.

The later clauses flesh out some important further details.

2. The ad hoc group shall make its proposal to SC 34 for consideration at its plenary scheduled for 2008-10-01, at Jeju Island, Korea. A draft proposal shall be made available to SC 34 one month before the plenary.

sets the duration of the work. It will take place over the next 6 months or so and report in time for SC 34 to consider its findings at the next plenary.

3. The ad hoc group shall be open to participation from all SC 34 members, subgroup members, and liaison bodies. Participants shall be nominated by these bodies to the SC 34 secretariat in the usual way.

simply states that the usual people will be able to participate in the activity (SC 34 committee members, etc.)

4. The ad hoc group shall be convened by Dr Alex Brown, as nominated by the UK National Body (BSi).

says it is I who will be convening it - an honour indeed!

5. Administration and support for the ad hoc group’s activities shall be provided by the SC 34 Secretariat.

points out that our super-efficient SC 34 secretariat (of the Japanese NB) will be providing much needed assistance.

6. The ad hoc group shall arrange face-to-face, telephone and electronic meetings as required in accord with the provisions of the JTC 1 Directives. The first face-to-face meeting shall take place in early July in London, UK.

sets out some meeting details. The "main event" will be a two day meeting in London in summer.

and ... that's it. The resolution passed with unanimous support.

Bringing Ecma in


The above resolution says nothing of Ecma, since maintenance is now an SC 34 activity. Practically speaking, however, the Ecma TC 45 team are the guys who know more that anybody what is really going on with OOXML, so SC 34 issued a liaison statement (a fancy term for a "message") inviting these experts to participate:

SC34 recognizes that Ecma TC45 members have in-depth knowledge, technical expertise on ISO/IEC 29500 and will seek to preserve and allow for inclusion of this existing body of technical expertise in SC34. SC34 therefore invite Ecma TC45 members to attend and fully participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 34 Ad Hoc Group 1 as well as in any future working group that will be dedicated to the maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500. SC34 intends to organize an efficient and timely process for maintaining and handling new work items to insure the evolution of the standard in following the JTC 1 Directives.


This encourages inclusion of the TC 45 people -- but they will of course have no power of vote at any level in the process.

Short-term maintenance


While all this investigative work is going on to determine the long-term maintenance procedure for OOXML, there is a more pressing task: recording the defects that are currently known and being found in the OOXML spec. With this in mind, a second ad hoc group is being established for collections of comments.

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 establishes Ad Hoc Group 2 in accordance with subclause 2.6.2 of the JTC 1 Directives, with the following terms of reference:

  • Definition of the task:
    • To define and put into operation a mechanism to compile a list of comments on ISO/IEC 29500 received from NBs, liaisons, and the general public.
    • To publish the on-going list as an open document on the SC 34 website.
  • Time frame: The collection mechanism is to become operational within 90 days from the end of the April 2008 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 plenary. Once this is operational, collection will continue until a long-term maintenance process is operational.
  • Membership: Open to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 P and O members, liaison organizations, and subgroup representatives.
  • Convener: Makoto Murata (JP).
  • Meeting arrangements: Work will be handled primarily by email, with optional telephone conference calls at dates and times to be announced.


The main thinking here is that knowledge about defects must not get lost. This group, under the expert leadership of Murata Makoto, will make sure that does not happen, and that defects are carefully collected so that they might be fed into the onward maintenance process.

A little local difficulty


While all this work was going on, the OOXML backstory continued. In Norway there is a fuss that the NB (Standard Norway) did not adopt the recommendation of a technical committee. The situation was well explained by the excellent Lars Marius Garshol in his blog entry preceding the Norwegian vote. I can understand the crossness - I certainly would be miffed if our standards body (BSI) did not heed the advice of its technical committee, though in the UK case of course the technical committee recommended that BSI approves DIS 29500 ... What I find less understandable is how what is essentially a local spat (with SN rather obviously acting within its powers) has been blown up into something bigger ...


Steve Pepper

The demonstration passed off reasonably enough ... 100 or so geeks decamped from the adjacent open source conference to stand in the rain and wave placards while Steve Pepper had fun making a speech and brandishing a hairdrier (perhaps risking quips about 'hot air' in the process). There was some half-hearted chanting ("what's that smell? OOXML!"). Meanwhile some on-looking SC 34 people felt insulted. One neutral XML expert, who I know for a fact took a very close technical look at DIS 29500 asked "what are they saying? that we are incompetent? that we do not have the right to decide for ourselves?". Well ... were they?


Disharmony? the anti-OOXML protest

Standards of behaviour


Perhaps the most extraordinary document issued by SC 34 during this Oslo meeting was an "open letter", which received many signatures.

We the undersigned participants at this SC 34 meeting wish to make it clear that we deplore the personal attacks that have been made during the DIS 29500 standardisation project in recent months. We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree.

We call on all organisations and individuals involved in SC 34 standardisation to support this view, and to refrain from initiating or engaging in any such personal attacks.

This content speaks for iself.]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080409-221633 Alex Brown Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:16:33 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080409-221633 Trouble at t'Mill Road http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080329-091355
Let me explain. The part of Cambridge where I live is called “Romsey Town” – an area which might be variously characterised as “an urban village” or perhaps, as where the house prices are slightly less mind-bending than in other more college-dense parts of the city.

There has been much local agitation lately about plans by supermarket giant Tesco, the world’s third-largest retailer, to establish a local store on Mill Road (our high street, effectively). Anybody walking hereabouts cannot fail to notice the “No Tesco” posters dotted around in house and shop windows.

The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign is highly organised and professional, and as an opposition campaign is deserving of study. It is fascinating to compare it to the (somewhat less organised and professional) campaigns surrounding a certain ICT standard about which I sometimes blog – and it is a reality check to note that this local group of campaigners have managed to get more national media attention (BBC Radio 4 mp3 audio) than DIS 29500 ever did!

This gives some local flavour:


Things came to a climax at a crucial planning meeting a few weeks ago in which city council officials decided whether or not Tesco’s planning permission would be granted. Although officially the meeting was meant to focus on the acceptability of the planning application itself, the meeting kept drifting back to the question of who was behind it. And indeed it seems to me that it is the identity of Tesco which is a key feature of the opposition campaign (this is, after all, not a “no supermarket on Mill Road” campaign). So the campaign site quotes disapprovingly that Tesco announced £2.5bn (~ US$5 bn) profits in 2007 – shocking indeed!

As things stand we are at an impasse. The “no” campaign claims Tesco has lost because their planning application for a store extension was refused; Tesco are maintaining they can go ahead with their store without building an extension and are lodging an appeal against the planning decision. The claim that Tesco has “lost” looks premature to me.

And as for my opinion? Well, this is something I can happily defer to my head of delegation …]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080329-091355 Alex Brown Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:13:55 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=03&entry=entry080329-091355 OOXML Purdah Again http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080310-094712 below) for NBs to consider (if they wish) in these final few weeks of the Fast Track process; and during this time NBs that voted in the 2 September ballot may (if they wish) change that vote – see the SC 34 Home Page for details.

While the National Bodies deliberate, it is once again time for me to enter a state of Purdah, and so I will be remaining silent on all things related to DIS 29500 for the time being. Let us hope (perhaps against hope) that the next few weeks will see some sensible, high-quality debate ...]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080310-094712 Alex Brown Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:47:12 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=03&entry=entry080310-094712 BRM Documents http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080306-082306 ]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080306-082306 Alex Brown Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:23:06 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=03&entry=entry080306-082306 BRM Perspective http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080304-191634 different perspective (and a clue to how I keep sane) ...


Badge & Gavel
]]> http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080304-191634 Alex Brown Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:16:34 GMT http://www.adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=03&entry=entry080304-191634