No subject

Thu Jul 26 08:50:44 UTC 2007

Microsoft have worked with transactions, to compare those with
existing standards and practices and to see if there is any scope for
finding unity in those approaches.

6000 pages is too large. Breaking the proposal into
- retrospective work mapping to ODF or other standards.
- new work starting from an ODF and ISO standard compliant base would
help to make the size of the standard less of an obstacle for

Specifications for non standard implementations of vector, math, time
and date, could be included in the retrospective work but should not
need to be a part of the forward looking standard format.

Further to the action on this proposal and on the international Fast
Track process I would suggest that Standards Australia, and if
applicable other nations, review their own processes and advice around
the role of participants in the review process.

The memorandum of understanding between Standards Australia and the
Commonwealth is written in terms of public benefit and national
interest. This contrast with the participant information on the
Standards Australia website which talks about representing specific
groups and their own interests. This generates a tension between the
overall goal of developing unifying standards in the national
interest, and a process which encourages people to view the process as
a partisan practice.

The process for any standard being considered should be clearly
available on the website. The phases and formats required for public
or industry participation
should be available throughout the process. Criteria for evaluation of
a good standard for a given function should be identified and agreed
in order to give a focus to the conversations. Existing standards
which may overlap should be identified. If the criteria are listed and
available this makes it far more likely
that people will be able to anticipate missing concerns or concerns
which are not core. It provides a purpose which enables collaboration
as well as competition around meeting known objectives.

I feel it would be useful to provide some workshops or communication
around what kind of skills resources and time are required to
participate. ie Australia needs to consider how it resources the
process of standards development in order to produce outcomes which
have vision beyond vendor interests.

I value very much the role that standards bodies have to play for our
innovative and social function and hope that Standards Australia feels
that OOXML is NOT "enough of a standard" and that while it might be
true that Microsoft formats will always have proprietary components,
that kind of fancy footwork is not compatible with ISO and Standards
Australia branding.

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate.

Janet Hawtin

More information about the linux-aus mailing list