Doug Mahugh really dislikes me. Boo hoo.

Doug, I know you are pissed. Despite your attempts to finally get an audience for your technical review, you were still denied your chance to speak. It's not my fault you didn't tell me you were coming to town. It's neither my fault your ever faithful buddy Yuk Wai seems to miss all his official emails, faxes and follow up phone calls. Maybe you need a better support team here in Malaysia. Get rid of the crud, me says.

Anyway, this is in response to your latest rant, "Elephants have good memories"

You seem to think I'm referring to your body size when I said "Elephant in the room." I didn't mean to, and you shouldn't need to feel so self conscious. Ditesh actually used that idiom while you were outside, which was exactly what TC4 was doing, and being polite about not talking about the fact that Microsoft, a vendor (horrors) is in the room. I did add ".. but he's outside now", and was scowled at by the Chair. See, he is fair!

I have taken time out at the end of this long day, to respond to all your queries in your last post, not because I need to, but because I guess, it probably the best thing. And I can.

Now to your facts and my response:

1) The "Act of desperation" I describe is not your voluntary exit from the room. Like I said, you left as graciously as you could considering the circumstance you put yourself into. The "Act of desperation" is the fabrication of the Business Card which stated your name and designation for a Malaysian organisation. It would have been more credible if you submitted your IASA-US card, and say that you were seconded and brought in as an expert. (There I go again, advising Microsoft how to be more tactful). At least then you didn't have to appear ethically challenged, which a few (I nearly used the word "most") people thought.

2) "stares from the room". You need to know some background history of TC4. It got heated because of alleged silly vendor battles last year. It was because people from your company kept questioning processes (which turned out OK), or whether votes were proper (yes, they were proper), and whether the Chair conducted the meeting well (yes, he did). After a while it gets awesomely irritating, especially when your company lobbies the senior management and gets the TC shut down. You may not have noticed it, but your representation got a lot of stares, and it wasn't pleasant, remember, the yardstick is based on Malaysian perceptions. Body language is slightly different here.

3) "she (DG of DSM) flew all the way to Geneva and was not allowed into the BRM." Did you see her sitting next to Cik Salwa in the BRM? The chair was reserved for Lebanon, but it was empty. Are you saying something otherwise? Please elaborate if you can.

4) "gruffly said 'best that I leave'." Did you say those words as you reached down to pack your laptop? I remember it as vividly as when you said "It's a simple matter of commercial interests" when you were last in KL. Yes you did leave very gracefully, and even had a pleasant joke with the Chair, which I didn't realise your disdain until you described it as "sarcasm" with a "negative tone." Doug! Lighten up! If it's a conspiracy, it's an open conspiracy against 'em troublesome vendors who keep appearing where we don't want them to!

5) "big bully". Perhaps if you read your post entitled "An 'open standards' meeting in Malaysia" and tell me if mouthing off to everyone in the room who thought that it was inappropriate for a vendor to attend, is something a mature person would do. Then come back and tell me you were all smiles and laughter. I understand that you were frustrated and angry at that point in time when you vented in your blog post, and hopefully you are calmer now, but blogging that way just reinforces the impression people have of your company: "a big bully". Plonking yourself down in TC4 and expecting people to accept you was quite presumptuous too. People don't like to be strong armed into having to bear with uncomfortable situations, especially through cynical and abusive loopholes exploited by companies like yours. Hey that sounds familiar!

6) "Regarding your arm-twisting of the chairman in the hallway, no comment?" Yes, I would like to comment on that. If you had your sources closer, I did not have to arm twist anyone. SIRIM hates contention, and needed a simple way to resolve the issue about vendors being in the room. It was made very clear that TC4 at this juncture did not want vendors in. They did not want another silly multinational's battle to erupt. I told Oliver that it was a bad idea. How many times do I have to say "Vendors are not Welcome" today?

7) "Regarding your little buddy IBM Hassan's presence, no comment there either?" Ask and ye shall receive. I have no control of Hasan's whereabouts, nor did I have any means to contact him. My stupid iPhone died on me, which was also a reason why I couldn't take a picture of you, nor your name card in TC4. His presence certainly complicated matters, and it's exactly the reason why I am against the idea of having ALL vendors at this juncture in TC4, and that includes IBM. If we allowed you in, then IBM would also request a seat. Is it fair for them not to be represented if Microsoft is there? The irony is that he sat in TC4 as an observer while you were in a cab to the airport. And he sat in YOUR seat. Funny and Sad at the same time. Funny more so.

8) "many countries". Perhaps you can elaborate on what I allegedly have said. I will try to fill in the details. BTW, how would you classify "many"? More than 1? More than 50%? Is 1027 considered "many" with respect to the number of pages in 6000? It can be quite subjective, eh?

9) "You seem to have a thing for those secretive hallway conversations, if this morning was any indication." Where else should I have conversations then? In secret smoke filled rooms? At least in the open hallways, your spies can see who I talk to, and if they have good hearing, listen in too. Actually, it's not much of a secret if it's in a hallway, eh? Especially when it's right in front of two doors. C'mon Doug, you can do better. Secret handshakes. Morse code. Self destructing messages. Facial signals. ESP....

10) "That good-memory thing may have been of some use to TC4 members who want to know what actually happened at the BRM." Unfortunately you weren't invited to speak by Malaysia. And I don't think you ever will. You, as everyone sees it, are coming in as a biased party. If Malaysia ever needed to pick an 'expert' it certainly would not be from Microsoft. It would be someone who was truly neutral, with no vested commercial interests, and prefably someone who is Malaysian. You Microsofties still cry out that the BRM was a complete [98.4%] success! Would you approve something which you haven't seen? Have you read the 6,000 pages + 2300 dispositions + 43 resolutions and have it in your elephantine brain? If so, can you tell me today, what is on the 234th page of DIS 29500-5?

11) "Do you mean your own ever-changing interests, as presented to TC4, or has Malaysia decided on specific interests" Have my interests ever changed? First of all, do I have any commercial interests in getting OOXML Approved or Disapproved? What interests in terms of Malaysia am I protecting? I'm protecting her reputation, her independance and her relevance in the ICT world. From what I've written over the past year and a bit, I don't think my interests have changed as much as you insinuate to. Can you describe what this "ever-changing interests" which you have written about? Even if it does change, what's the relevance in that?

12) "It seems to me that the 23 comments submitted by Malaysia on DIS29500 are Malaysia's interests, but those are curiously missing from your Review". My argument is that Malaysia's interests lie not just in the 23 comments submitted to the BRM. Malaysia as a National Body has to evaluate the DIS in its entirety. I don't understand why Microsoft is so adamant in restricting the scope of the discussion to just the items submitted by individual countries. C'mon Doug, we are voting on OOXML in its entirety. One good thing about the BRM is that many NBs come together and understand all the issues which affect us as countries. If other countries bring up serious concerns, we need to see if its to our interest to adopt them as well. That's an open process, right? Why are you trying to 'close' it? Why have a BRM at all then? So those pesky NBs don't get to collaborate and agree on issues and gang up on little poor me?

13) "Now that I'm out of Malaysia (sitting at the Taipei airport) and can't be hung for divulging state secrets" - that's till you come back for your next TC4 meeting when your friend pal o' buddy Yuk Wai decides to be absent from TC4 again - joke!

14) "There is not a single word in it about Malaysia's 23 comments or their relevant dispositions and resolutions." That's because it was a separate presentation given by Ditesh. Perhaps if you managed to change your flight plans, you could have sat in like Hasan the IBM dude, and listened to him discuss the technicalities. Your good ol' pal ol' buddy had the opportunity to discuss technicalities with Ditesh but he didn't. The braindump failed. All he could bring up was Patrick Durusau's quote which he said was ODF's Author. Quite pathetic.

15) "There is not a single word in it about the 40+ resolutions that were passed at the BRM" Well, if you look carefully, I did say in the slides, that CEILING was passed, and US Multipart was passed, and Canada Conformance Clause was passed. Are they not part of the 43 resolutions? Now how many of that is more than "not a single word"? Do you need more? The evidence is right in front of you. I'm getting the impression that you are looking at the wrong document here. Your spies need to be a lot more competent. Please make sure you have the right facts before you start shooting off your mouth. It's kinda childish.

16) "but you did include several slides about resolutions that weren't passed." Is it not IMPORTANT that people know what resolutions which needed to be heard but was not because there was not enough time? Look Doug, don't take this personally, but I am concerned about the process which Microsoft chose to ram OOXML through. Figure that out, and you will find that its not YOU I'm disappointed with. Its the Fast Track process which you have failed to justify.

17) "You include many (mostly) slides on things that were never discussed at the BRM, which seems odd for a report labeled 'Review of BRM Issues.'" Almost the same point as #16, with a minor addition. This is a Review. A Review not just covers the good (the 0.1 incremental increase in value the BRM provided to a version 0.2 draft), but it also must cover the bad. Microsoft has already put out such great news that 98.4% items was passed, and this great news of course must be tempered with the bad. If you guys tempered your spin, then I wouldn't have to play the role of the bad guy. But you guys really went overboard, even making the 98.4% pie chart the first thing people see in your little presentations. That's why my second slide is "Really?"

18) "binary mapping and translation" Is, I finally realised, is the key issue to OOXML. I always wondered where OOXML sat in the ecosystem, it felt as though it was schizo, trying to fulfill one demand on one hand, while being modern and pseudo-XML-like on the other. If we have the Binary-XML mapping, this fulfils the scope of OOXML, and I think it's quite an important component. I believe that once Norway resolved the scope, it became obvious that other countries would find this mapping useful too. Now that you've brought it up, can Microsoft provide a draft, or whatever information they have on this mapping issue today? How else would you claim high fidelity backward compatibility?

19) "Yoon Kit, how can you with a straight face present that to TC4 as a 'Review of BRM Issues?'" I can, and I have. As much as you can with a straight face say that the BRM was a success.

20) "Hassan could have prepared this report for them himself, without ever attending the BRM" Maybe he could. I don't know. He certainly has contacts. Just like Dr.        Dzahar I guess.

21) "the specific list of complaints you included reads more like a Rob Weir or Bob Sutor blog post than a recounting of what happened at the BRM." Actually, if you see, the complaints are from different delegates who attended the BRM. They are direct quotes, and they are not happy.

22) "Simply put, the decision is this: will Malaysia's position on DIS29500 be determined by a calm, rational analysis of what's best for Malaysia, or by the emotional and secretive distortions of an inexperienced young man" One thing you will need to understand is that Asians tend to look younger than we actually are. Must be all the rice we eat. How old do you think I am? I admit, as I always have in previous posts, that I do not claim to be an expert in the standards process, nor an expert in XML, nor an expert in debating evangelists online. However I do have a degree in Computer Science, and I do consider myself technically competent. I also do understand that your personal attacks are driven from your frustration of having to travel thousands of miles and sit in hotel rooms waiting for a chance to unleash your OpenXML kungfu, and finding the channels unprepared or blocked. Judging by your blog posts, you are also feeling emotional, and thats a bad position to be in when writing a blog post. Even an inexperienced young man would know, and would advise you to think it over 24 hours before ranting in public. So I will, for this time, disregard your outburst and proceed to answer the first part of your question. [The second part is to your statement is, evidently a false choice]

Malaysia's decision will be based on calm, rational and open analysis of the DIS 29500. It is unfortunate that Malaysia does not have resources which well developed countries like US or Canada or UK have, but we are trying. We will make mistakes, but they're our mistakes to make and bear. Judging by the feedback we are getting, we appear to be on the right track.

So Doug, I know you felt that this trip was a waste of time. This trip, you didn't get to bamboozle some ignorant bureaucrat. Maybe next time you come to Malaysia, ... no. Ive given you guys too many hints already. I need my material for our next conspiracy.

Remember. Big Picture. It's just a File Format. You guys will resubmit through the normal process. It's OK. It's just one year of our lives wasted. I forgive you.

yk.

Comments

[gml]

>I think that the issue really comes to the fore when open source is used as a strategic tool by companies.

(hmpf.. deleted my tirade about propriety software and entry barriers in the medical software field)

Proprietary
1. Enter an _established market_. Pay the big proprietary player to have access to documentation, pay humans to reverse engineer undocumented quirks.

2. Pray that your software is low on your big partners radar or he'll incorporate the same functonality into his suite after a while. If you fly to high, watch him as he smiles while not renewing any contract you had with him. Get headaches while he introduces new, undocumented features and turns old, established ones off.

OSS has problems too for the up and comers that wan't to feed their family, but proprietary software isn't a golden calf either.

The biggest thing i like most about OSS is, that by enabling people to meddle in and spread software, the basic tools for interaction between nations and their citizens are becoming a common and affordable good. Not only the "1st world".

And the problem I see with OOXML is, that it's only purpose is, to hinder this development with a proposal that is overly complex, made with too little effort and bringing nothing new to our world to justify a 2nd document format.

[Gareth Horton]

@Rob Brown: Rob, I certainly don't think people who use open source software are freeloaders, they are very rational consumers.

I think that the issue really comes to the fore when open source is used as a strategic tool by companies.

Let us say in a hypothetical situation that a big company with some open source bona fides decide that they want to own the programmers text editor market. Perhaps they do not even want to own the market, they just want to annoy a competitor.

Note that this company may not even be a software company, primarily. They might be a hardware company, or a services company, for example ;)

First step is to fund an open source "project" and "community", enhanced by a bit of in-house development talent, say 4 programmers and some startup funding.

Few months down the line, they have 4 full time programmers and 15 part time free programmers working on the project, the first beta is released.

6 months down the line, momentum has grown and they reduce to 2 full time programmers and 30 part time free programmers.

12 months down the road, a huge community has built up, the product is really good, due to a high amount of development hours logged by talented people and a huge amount of user feedback and free QA from the community. A fairly reasonable amount of users have now been gained from other commercial software.

Now's the time to pour in some marketing/evangelism cash, to really cement the deal.

2 years down the line, huge market share gained, and big company decide to fork, with a Professional version, introduce support options etc.

Not only do they start to get decent revenue coming in from the Pro and support options, but the free version serves as a barrier to entry for other competitors. The model is financially viable, as the drip-feed in-house development costs can be funded by support/subscriptions etc and professional services. The lions share of the development costs up to this point have been borne by volunteers. This development drive to maturity is really the key phase of innovation and the hardest work that will ever be done on a product, in most cases.

Very little work is now undertaken by the company on the "community" version, which is protecting their trade from new entrants, pretty much for free.

One could scale this model up, dependent on the complexity of the software and how popular it might be to a community willing to participate. Text editors would likely have a high community dev to internal dev ratio, but something like ERP would likely be switched around.

The issue is that in many cases, this poor revenue stream, possibly still even in the more commercial phase after 2 years can only be subsidised by large companies, or companies with different business areas that can be used to cross-subsidise.

Admittedly, software development suits this model well, since highly-skilled labour is the greatest cost and the big company gets a lot of that for free, both on the development and QA side.

I suppose my viewpoint is skewed, in that I very much want to be paid DIRECTLY for my work. Kudos and things of that nature tend to pale into insignificance when you have a disabled child. I need the money to make his life and our family's life better, the wider community is very much out of focus for me in comparison.

The kudos aspect could work in terms of getting a more well-paid job in the future, based on a glowing CV from working on top quality open-source projects, but who serves as the referee? I suppose one could go through the source control system and review the quality of code checked in, or check the bug database for issues in the case of QA. I still feel most employers would rather get a reference from a traditional "manager". It would certainly be quicker.

Many others could well treat this as a hobby or even a calling, as Yoon Kit seems to do. But for me, I can't consider investing that amount of time, as that means less time with the family. Paid work already eats up enough time.

Now if someone was willing to pay me to like Open Source and evangelise it, that would be a different matter! Then again, maybe not. There is something inherently grubby about characters like Roy Schestowitz. Maybe more on the "hawt" side, like Yoon Kit! (I had to use that, as I love the fact that I had to look up an English word, written by a Malaysian. I am using it more in the sense of the French word from which it derives, i.e. haut couture, haut cuisine etc. I hope that is the correct way)

P.S - Apologies to Yoon Kit for using so much bandwidth and storage space - I hope you don't have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

[Rob Brown]

@Gareth:

I won't get in the middle of your discussion with Yoon Kit, but I would like to comment on your concern about "the economics of open source software". It sounds like you assume that open source excludes proprietary software, but I don't agree.

There are many idealogical positions on "Free" and "Open Source" software of course, but I think that in the end it comes down to the good old market and people *will* pay money for things that see value in. There's also a view that users of open-source software are freeloaders, but I believe that term applies better to people who pirate Microsoft products than those who use free software!

So as a personal example, my OS is Ubuntu Linux (free, I used to use Mandriva on a subscription basis but I feel that Ubuntu is better). Office suite is OpenOffice (free). Scientific package is Scilab (free). Programmer's text editor is Visual Slickedit (US$284). I use CodeWeavers' CrossOver ($US35) for a couple of Windows packages, which I also paid for. I would certainly pay money for your product, if I had a need for it!

For proprietary software vendors, the only "new" issue in open source software is that your competitors may be charging an unbeatable price for their product. You may lose customers for whom price is the ultimate decider, but for those who also consider quality and function/requirement match, your position is unchanged.

[Gareth Horton]

-Yoon Kit,

Sorry about the delay on the answer, but today was a holiday in the UK, so a family outing beckoned.

>Gareth,
>I dont see why the DG issue is so important. For the case of the Malaysian TC4, Doug was allowed into the room as an >Observer after we discussed the status of un-registered people. Read the Chair's response to Doug.
>http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/how-to-royally.html
>So we were more 'open' than the BRM was. The point is moot.

-The DG issue is not necessarily important intrinsically, but your evasiveness on this is rather telling. It is how you respond to the question which is important, not the question itself.

I also note that you chose not to include my original question in this response, so here it is again:

@Yoon Kit, so was the DG of DSM allowed into the BRM or not. This seems to be one of the few things flying around here that probably has quite a few witnesses to it, should one wish to probe further.

You are claiming not, Doug is claiming otherwise.

Here are some potential responses in multiple choice format:

a) Yes he/she was, I made a mistake, sorry Doug.
b) No - at no time did he/she enter the BRM. He/she was barred by security. Doug, you need to get your facts straight.
c) Go away, I'm not going to answer this for fear of incriminating myself.
d) Yes he/she was, I lied on purpose. Now there, I've said it, are you happy now?

>> ODF does not even include formulas for spreadsheets.
>> It is really beyond belief.
>Indeed its beyond belief. I hope that you take a logical step instead of blind faith from the Microsoft evangelists and read >these posts:
>Where I talk about the defined formula syntax for ODF:
>http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2006/11/the_formula_iss.html

-I am well aware of the ability of ODF to allow one to invent a formula syntax outside the specification. As a small vendor, we felt it would be a highly onerous task to design our own formula specification (or attempt to replicate Excel's), and make that namespace and accompanying documentation known to all other implementors of the ODF specification. Since we deal primarily with Excel, Open XML is a more logical choice for now. The fact remains that ODF does not support formulae, and all that exists is a placeholder for different solutions.

>and then I elaborate on what really is the difference between OOXML's supposedly wonderful 'Formula Definition', 'MS Office >97 Help files' and 'OpenFormula for ODF v1.2'.
>http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/07/mathematically-.html
>Please compare and tell me which is superior.

-It would take me a very long time to do this properly. I am not sure my company has the resources and desire to fund me to do a project of that scope! Your blog post, whilst interesting, covers only the Ceiling function in Excel. It is then pointed out in the comments that Excel's Ceiling function is not the same as the ceiling function in mathematics, which only takes one argument. This rather punctures your balloon. Maybe you could point me to another post where you end up winning the argument you make.

I am quite willing to accept that at some point, OpenFormula ends up being a very useful standard.

>> If you (and Rob Weir!) had applied the same efforts
>> to ODF as you are doing with Open XML,
>> it might just be getting in shape for a pass through ISO now.
>Newsflash, ODF already an ISO standard. ISO/IEC 26300:2006.

-I apologize for using an overly complex grammatical and semantic construction. Your command of English is generally so flawless, I forget it is likely not your mother tongue.

I will try and dissect it a little.

ODF 1.0 was not ready for ISO certification in 2006.
ODF 1.0 passed through ISO because no-one wished to complain about anything or perform any review whatsoever.
If you (and Rob Weir) had been tasked with doing a proper job on reviewing and improving the ODF 1.0 spec, it would probably be ready to be submitted to ISO now and be excellent.

>> It is wrong for you to pass yourself off as a neutral party.
>As I have clarified before, I am not a neutral party. I am biased towards Malaysia's interests.

-You judge yourself to be biased towards Malaysia's interests based on your fervent belief in Open Source, which you deem to be in Malaysia's interests. Another may believe that commercial software development is in Malaysia's interests.

>I believe that ODF and Open Source has a special place for developing (and even developed) countries like Malaysia. I have >said this repeatedly, and I will say it again if you need me to.
>I elaborate on this point here when I find other NB's conflicted because they have allowed Foreign interests into their NBs.
>http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/02/geneva-day-duo.html

-I would love to sit in a pub with you and discuss the economics of open source software further, as it has long been a mystery how everyone gets paid. Apart from the many "prizes" publicly offered by Sun and IBM that is. From my perspective, the one thing that less developed countries potentially have in massive abundance is humans, capable of generating wealth with little more than a brain and a laptop. They should be paid for their time spent developing software. If not, then companies such as IBM and Sun happily reap the rewards of the massive capital barriers to entry for hardware and perform a kind of economic dumping using "free" software, cross-subsidised by their hardware businesses.

>Otherwise, can you point out any technical flaws with my arguments?

-Yes, Wouter has offered a few, and I feel that schema based validation is an important element of XML. Percentages are not strings, they are numbers. Human readability is secondary to the benefits of data typing. Should one want to create a custom schema to validate/control a set of spreadsheets, perhaps trawl through and find exceptions etc for compliance purposes, all this great functionality offered by schema typing would be wasted.

>If you cannot, can I request that you don't trivialize it as "bickering". This is actual normative text which goes into the >specifications of OOXML.

-I deemed it trivial in comparison with the omission of formulas from a specification concerned with spreadsheets.

>Now my turn to ask some questions:
>1) Which product did your good self develop for OOXML?
-Monarch V9
>2) What feature in particular do you find in OOXML which is not available in other formats?
-Formulas, market demand. Market demand means it is not worth our while to closely investigate the intricate details of ODF, since there is insufficient benefit to implementing support for it, at this time. Once the next ODF ISO version gets approved (1.3?) it will certainly merit revisiting, unless customers demand support for it before that time.
>3) If there are changes in DIS29500, are you open to modify your product to cater for the 'demands' of ISO National Bodies?
-Of course.
>Or will you always base your product on Ecma376?
>4) Is OOXML a defining factor in your product featureset? Or is it just another file format?
-It is another fileformat, but it does offer a huge amount of new possibilities for future product functionality, whether in Monarch, or in new products we may create to take advantage of Open XML. ODF would very likely also offer some new possibilities, but we have not examined them, as we have no user demand for ODF as yet. As it seems to be highly likely that OpenOffice will support Open XML, the need to implement ODF decreases even more.
>5) How much of OOXML does your product have to implement? 30%? 80%?
30-40% (OPC, SpreadsheetML, other plumbing)
>6) If your company was explicitly not invited to a meeting, would you fabricate a business card of another organisation to >attend it?

-Who was "explicitly not invited". This means that a formal communication was sent from the organization that is holding the meeting to an external organization stating they must not attend the meeting. Was this the case? Was Microsoft explicitly told not to attend?

If you mean "implicitly not invited", i.e. did not receive a formal invitation, but was eligible to attend due to membership of a professional organization, then I do not see an issue. I think Doug explained the business card issue pretty clearly. I seriously doubt that Doug demanded that he was "elevated" to a VP, it was likely just taken care of by someone who had no idea of the eventual ramifications of this.

I have often attended events where my company was not specifically invited, but I went as part of a professional body to which I belonged, that being the relevant association. I am assuming this happens to you all the time too.

If there was a procedural requirement for a business card, or some other membership identification, then I would endeavour to have it prepared ahead of time, before attending the meeting.

Best regards

Gareth

[Peets]

I must say that the emails and responses from Doug look, well, infantile, sorry. This guy needs to be re-brainwashed because he's drifting off message - his less than adult responses reflect badly on his employer (or master, take your pick).From what I know from working almost a year in Singapore (and other places in Asia) it strikes me that Doug hasn't just lost face - he appears to be determined to make it worse. Talk about cultural sensitivity.. yk, thank you for your measured responses and clarity of reporting.

[Simon]

yk,

It appears you got a net stalker with this dude called Priceless.

It's priceless.

[Pircelss]

yk,

It seems to me that you have jail broken your phone, otherwise you would not be able to "ssh in and out" of the cell phone.

As to how *Apple* breaks any sort of compatibility with Linux, you will want to research the DAAP incident (where encrypted traffic was used with secret keys to prevent interop with Airports and other streaming services); The encrypted blobs in the song list in newer ipods that has no reason for existing, other than blocking existing open source software (this is not in any way related to DRM, its only a mechanism to stop non-iTunes from working); The proprietary USB protocol to communicate with the iPhone (without jailbreaking it, which is an illegal activity in several countries).

So by purchasing a phone from Apple, you are encouraging that kind of behavior. For someone that seems to care about open standards and open source, it does not seem that you lead a very consistent life.

You purchased a consumer device, gave money to Apple, and then hacked it (possibly violating the license in Malaysia, but definitely violating the terms in the US and other countries).

Bravo!

[Yoon Kit]

Priceless,

Thanks for your input on how I should decide on my next purchase of my consumer devices. I will take your advise when I shop around the next time.

Regards,

yk.

btw, hows does an iPhone break Linux? I can ssh in and out of it quite nicely.

[Yoon Kit]

Gareth,

I dont see why the DG issue is so important. For the case of the Malaysian TC4, Doug was allowed into the room as an Observer after we discussed the status of un-registered people. Read the Chair's response to Doug.

http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/how-to-royally.html

So we were more 'open' than the BRM was. The point is moot.

> ODF does not even include formulas for spreadsheets.
> It is really beyond belief.

Indeed its beyond belief. I hope that you take a logical step instead of blind faith from the Microsoft evangelists and read these posts:

Where I talk about the defined formula syntax for ODF:
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2006/11/the_formula_iss.html

and then I elaborate on what really is the difference between OOXML's supposedly wonderful 'Formula Definition', 'MS Office 97 Help files' and 'OpenFormula for ODF v1.2'.

http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/07/mathematically-.html

Please compare and tell me which is superior.

> If you (and Rob Weir!) had applied the same efforts
> to ODF as you are doing with Open XML,
> it might just be getting in shape for a pass through ISO now.

Newsflash, ODF already an ISO standard. ISO/IEC 26300:2006.

> It is wrong for you to pass yourself off as a neutral party.

As I have clarified before, I am not a neutral party. I am biased towards Malaysia's interests. I believe that ODF and Open Source has a special place for developing (and even developed) countries like Malaysia. I have said this repeatedly, and I will say it again if you need me to.

I elaborate on this point here when I find other NB's conflicted because they have allowed Foreign interests into their NBs.

http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/02/geneva-day-duo.html

Otherwise, can you point out any technical flaws with my arguments?

If you cannot, can I request that you don't trivialize it as "bickering". This is actual normative text which goes into the specifications of OOXML.

Now my turn to ask some questions:
1) Which product did your good self develop for OOXML?
2) What feature in particular do you find in OOXML which is not available in other formats?
3) If there are changes in DIS29500, are you open to modify your product to cater for the 'demands' of ISO National Bodies? Or will you always base your product on Ecma376?
4) Is OOXML a defining factor in your product featureset? Or is it just another file format?
5) How much of OOXML does your product have to implement? 30%? 80%?
6) If your company was explicitly not invited to a meeting, would you fabricate a business card of another organisation to attend it?

Much regards,

yk.

[Priceless]

YK,

There is OpenMoko, which is a fully open source phone.

But even Symbian and Windows are less proprietary and locked than Apple products are (filled with DRM and they go to great lengths to break open source software, in particular Linux).

So it is not about being fundamentalist. You seem to be for "open", until "open" gets in the way of "cool", Or as you say in the way of "beautiful".

So "beautiful" trumps open source. I get it.

[Gareth Horton]

@Yoon Kit, so was the DG of DSM allowed into the BRM or not. This seems to be one of the few things flying around here that probably has quite a few witnesses to it, should one wish to probe further.

You are claiming not, Doug is claiming otherwise.

By the way, bickering over issues such as percentage signs, when you are obviously a fanatical supporter of ODF is highly amusing.

ODF does not even include formulas for spreadsheets. It is really beyond belief.

If you (and Rob Weir!) had applied the same efforts to ODF as you are doing with Open XML, it might just be getting in shape for a pass through ISO now.

I can understand many of your arguments on the process, but they lose credibility in the light of your unwavering support of ODF. It appears ODF is a sacred cow, perfect in all aspects and never to be criticised.

I am not a neutral party in this, as we have a product that reads and writes Open XML. As we say in the British parliament, I have declared an interest.

It is wrong for you to pass yourself off as a neutral party. You seem to be doing that to an extent with your dealings with your NB. I may be wrong.

If you do "declare an interest", then you should really hold up ODF to the same scrutiny that you are applying to Open XML.

Gareth

[Yoon Kit]

Priceless,

> you use an iPhone, the most proprietary and locked system out there.

Do you have the source code for Windows Mobile, RIM or Symbian?

Its a phone. No need to get fundamentalist about it, dude.

BTW, after the big crash that day, Im reconsidering using it as my main phone. It makes a beautiful and nice toy, though!

What are your thoughts on it?

yk.

[Yoon Kit]

Doug,

> I don’t want to get into debates about race and cultural sensitivity and so on

Your first paragraph in your response is a cop out if Ive ever seen one. Ive taken several hours of my personal time to detail and answer each and every question which you raised in your previous post, and raised some questions for you to answer. I would expect some reciprocation of information.

Instead you hand-wave away my queries, and proceed to ask me more questions.

Do you think thats fair?

> I’m glad to let my actions do the talking.

Act then. Answer some of my questions.

> so I thought you were sincerely trying
> to figure out how to get me into the TC4 debate.
> If I had had any idea that you’d object to
> my presence, I would never have come
> – I was only there because you had suggested
> I should attend with IASA.

And now you question my sincerity. *sigh*

Here's the thing. Oliver desperately needed Microsoft's voice to be heard. I told him that IASA is a convenient 'proxy' to (ab)use if he needed TC4 to get Microsoft's POV.

I specifically told him to braindump Aaron Tan, as he is IASA's official who has a high position and contributes positively to it. There may be problems, because he is from Microsoft, but there is a slim chance that he may be 'accepted'. Very slim. 1 out of a million. And to quote Lloyd from Dumb and Dumber "There is a chance!"

Please read my email to Oliver. It clearly states there in detail. I suggested Aaron. The reasons are there in the blog post too.

http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/the-elephant-in.html

Now to claim that it was some form of entrapment, Hey, in actuality, you are trying to take advice from 'the other side'! Please proceed carefully on what your opponent tells you. Use your brain and think it through.

Whats worse, dont take it a step further by sending yourself instead of Aaron!

Dude! Dont blame the 'enemy' for decisions you make based on their recommendations! Thats real stupid and low!

My email to Oliver is as clear as ever. If Microsoft wanted its voice to be heard, braindump Aaron. Unfortunately Doug, having you at TC4 was out of the question, because of policies which were set by DSM months ago.

So stop calling me insincere, because if you review the facts, its not my fault you and your company went to the extreme yet again to get its own way. And to fail miserably. And unfortunately your reputation as a professional has taken a serious hit from this humiliating experience. Actions indeed.

yk.

[Yoon Kit]

Jeffrey,

> Still it is hard to explain why a Malaysian
> reporting on the BRM would not mention what
> changes are made to the Office Open XML
> specification on the issues Malaysia submitted.

Im not sure where you are getting your information from, but you obviously was not in the meeting. I did cover alot of items which were resolved at the BRM. Please re-read my detailed post which rebuts Doug's wrong assessment of my presentation which he too, did not attend. He voluntarily left before that could happen because he had a flight to catch. The issue, which you think you believe is well explained in point #15. After you read that, then perhaps you can come back and comment?

> by submitting them you have focussed Malaysia
> issues with OOXML on those 23 mostly and
> if then the reporting deals solely with
> other isses, seems a strange approach

Please read point #12.

Your complaints are rather weak and it may not be your fault, since you dont have all the facts. But please dont just read Doug's account of things. He wasnt there. Read mine too.

Can you please identify yourself? Your email says that you are from ISO in Switzerland. If you are an official from ISO, please make that clear, with your designation, because I, as a member of a NB have a few questions for you too.

yk

[Simon]

You are doing an amazing job. If only the same could be done at some "developed" nations.

It is interesting to see the strange nit-picking in the last few comments above. Trying hopelessly to divert attention from the facts.

[Priceless]

For someone that advocates open standards and open source I find it interesting that you use an iPhone, the most proprietary and locked system out there.

I also suspect that you had to jail break it, I am left wondering if you consider this practice legal, and if so, why?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Doug Mahugh]

YK, I said I’d respond in more detail, although after looking over all the comments and posts I’m not sure there’s a lot more to be said. I don’t want to get into debates about race and cultural sensitivity and so on: I believe all of us conduct ourselves in ways that speak for themselves in those areas, and I’m glad to let my actions do the talking.

One thing I think would be very useful to all involved would be if you could post the presentation you gave to TC4 (the one that was printed out and waiting for each attendee when they arrived). That would allow others to reach their own conclusions on whether you’re truly working to educate TC4 on the outcome of the BRM, with no need for you and me to debate what’s in that presentation.

Another thing many people would find useful is for you to directly answer the question about Fadillah being allowed into the BRM.

As for your suggestion that I attend the TC4 meeting with IASA, it’s clear there was a lot more going on there than I realized. I’m more inclined to trust people and later regret it, than to distrust people, so I thought you were sincerely trying to figure out how to get me into the TC4 debate. If I had had any idea that you’d object to my presence, I would never have come – I was only there because you had suggested I should attend with IASA. I think Oliver will have some things to add to the public discussion of this soon, as well as some others involved, and that should help onlookers understand that situation. Here too, I think our actions speak loud enough that our words won’t add much.

It’s been an interesting week, but let’s get back to other things.

[Jeffrey]

[quote]My argument is that Malaysia's interests lie not just in the 23 comments submitted to the BRM.[/quote]

Still it is hard to explain why a Malaysian reporting on the BRM would not mention what changes are made to the Office Open XML specification on the issues Malaysia submitted. It makes your statement rather weak as you have seems to focus complelty on what was not achieved and have deliberatly left out the things that were achieved.

I would not like you to represent my country and come back reporting on the BRM without informing me how the issues that we submitted were dealt with. I find it very strange.

That Malaysia is not just interested in those 23 issues would be correct but by submitting them you have focussed Malaysia issues with OOXML on those 23 mostly and if then the reporting deals solely withother isses, seems a strange approach

[Doug Mahugh]

Hey YK, I just got back home after the long flight.

Much writing all around the last 12 hours, but I'm going to get some sleep first and then respond in detail. At a high level, I'll agree that me angrily insisting I wasn't angry at the meeting was the wrong tool for the job, and I deserve some of the skewering you've given me for that.

At the other extreme, we're still in disagreement on who's been trying to bamboozle folks in KL, and whose idea it was for me to attend the TC4 meeting with IASA.

More over the weekend.

Cheers, Doug

[gml]

What Apolodor said, replace Romania with Germany though. I wish there would be more news, blogs, whathaveyou about the decision finding process here.

[orlando]

While Malaysia is being distracted by lobbyist Microsoft employees [1] and can't do his technical work in peace, in other news:

India confirmed its "disapprove" vote of OOXML( DIS 29500 ) fast-track.

It was decided by 13 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

( the 5 votes include Microsoft [judge and part] and a couple of Microsoft partners )

http://www.tech2.com/india/news/software/breaking-news-indias-final-vote-on-ms-office-file-standard-is-no/32081/0

http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/03/india-votes-no-for-ooxml.html

Congratulations India.

[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2008/02/27/relaxing-in-geneva.aspx

[Apolodor]

I envy you people so much. I wish we had, here in Romania, such a dedication to the interest of our country. Keep up the good work! You're an inspiration.