On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:54 +0200, bryan rasmussen wrote:
 
> I think that Rick saying each of these things in turn is no problem is
> probably explainable by the simple fact that he has been castigated by
> anti-ms forces on this issue and perhaps is reflexively likely to
> think the anti-ms side is wrong.

Stockholm Syndrome :-)   Or perhaps Hanging Chad Syndrome...

On Bryan's points:

1) Participation is good. The people who should *not* participate in a
standards effort are the people who don't want that standard and have a
rival standard of their own: unless they play things very carefully they
may not meet the good faith obligation that are necessary for
involvement, not to mention anti-trust issues. People who like Phillips
head screwdrivers should not try to derail the ISO Standard for Torx
screw heads and then preach about the inappropriateness of the what the
other side is doing.

2) Coordination across 50 to 100 countries is not a trivial task, and it
is not surprising to me if there is a slip up sooner or later, where
someone has not been communicated to. What matters is whether it is
dealt with transparently, promptly and properly. As far as I know it
was. 

3) AFAIK the issues are unrelated. An example of correct procedure being
followed by SIS is being taken as a sign of something nefarious, without
evidence. 

But certainly I think there is a bottom-line requirement of an
assumption of good faith (trust but verify) on the part of other
participants, when involved in standards-making. If someone says "I need
this" you don't say "no you don't" or "that is only a small niche". If
someone says "This was an honest mistake" you grumble "OK" (and count
the forks) and get back to work.
 
heers
Rick