Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Rick Jelliffe[edit]

I request community assistance with the Australian section of 'Complaints about the national bodies process'. Australia sent a guy called Rick Jelliffe to the ISO. Jelliffe was previously involved in a scandal where Microsoft paid him to edit Wikipedia articles on OOXML in it's favor. Jelliffe was also paid by Microsoft to help Microsoft through the ECMA standards process. Because of this, Standards Australia was widely criticised for not sending someone more independent. Some people keep repeatedly editing the article to make it falsely appear that the criticism came from only a single person (see diff here), when in fact the criticism was widespread, as the reference stated. We need to watch that the criticism of the standards process doesn't get diminished in this article. Thanks, Lester 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mince words; this is about User:hAl's edits and reverts. The source you added (and HAl deleted) mentioned 2 more names, so I added them in by name - but in Norway, for instance, more than 20 names are readily available; the article will look a mess if all of them are mentioned. So at what level do we agree to say "some" and let people look at the references, rather than mentioning them all by name in the article? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alvestrand. There are already too many organizations and individuals who criticized the Australian process to mention each one. Same with Norway. If we just mention one or two, then it gives the impression that it was just one or two people who criticized the process. It's a worry that any references get deleted, such as in the above example. I'm also concerned that the section 'Complaints about the national bodies process' is growing smaller by the day, as many points have been deleted. And some people are changing each section to say things like "According to" and "An article in Ars Technica said...". This casts doubt on the authenticity of the information. Either it is a reliable source, or else we don't use it. But we shouldn't cast doubt on every piece of information that criticizes the process. is a reliable source. Ars Technica is a reliable source. The Sydney Morning Herald reference (which someone deleted) is a reliable source! Lester 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is whether the sources are biased. Take a look at the where the criticism comes from:
  • An Ars Technica article that just sources the Groklaw blog which is extremely anti-OOXML
  • An Open Source Initiative board member
  • New Zealand Open Source Society president and director of an open source consulting firm
  • The Open Source Observatory
  • Andy Updegrove, whose blog is extremely anti-OOXML. For example, the current "quote of the day" is, "I didn't think OOXML needed to be a standard; getting it that designation is like vanity-press publishing"
Take a look at the above sources of criticism. Do you think that it goes without saying that they are not biased? Or do you think they are potentially biased? Potentially biased statements can be attributed like they are in the article. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Lester, you need to substantiate your claims. Rick Jelliffe's "scandal" was initiated by Rick himself when he openly disclosed Microsoft's offer. Microsoft's offer was to compensate for Rick's time spent on correcting factual errors. In the end no money changed hands, so your claims are false. Do you have additional information on this matter? If so, please, share. (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
So what the hell does "offer was to compensate for Rick's time" & "no money changed hards" mean. What did Microsoft do, bend the fabric of space-time to let Rick have his time back. By the way did Microsoft compensate for your time After all you are posting from a IP in Seattle WA, US —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the end, I did 4 days work that I charged for. And then about two months at my own cost trying to catch up with morons claiming there was something underhand going on.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am that Rick Jelliffe. I would ask Wikipedia editors to be very careful not to repeat the lies and distortions about me. What happens, unfortunately, is that people Google to the most popular sources which are often the early, sensational Slashdotted articles, and not the fact-checked later ones. In fact, there was no "scandal" in the sense of there being any substance to the story: MS didn't want to edit the article because of COI, and I wrote on my blog about their legitimate approach to me to get the article improved, which I did by doing things the way they should be done in that situation and with the kind help of various Wikipedia editors: through the edit pages. So at no time was anything wrong done, nor was there even any offer or idea of doing anything wrong, and yet this is still quoted as a "scandal". So when my names comes up again, it is not "Oh, Rick Jelliffe, the guy we made idiots of ourselves about last time" but "Oh, Rick Jelliffe, the guy who always seems to be involved in scandals". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Australian section is not as bad as it could be. However the sentence that 'Late in the process, Standards Australia broke a previous public pledge to send two internal employees to the ISO.' is 1) not substantiated in the quoted sources, and 2) false, because in fact no such pledge had been made that I am aware of: what happened was the initial team (consisting of 1 Standards Australia employee and 1 experienced long-time standards expert not an employeee) which had been announced and agreed by the Technical Committee had to drop out at the last moment and Standards Australia had to put together a new team literally hours before the deadline, which again consisted of 1 Standards Australia employee as Head of Delegation and 1 experienced long-time standards expert i.e. me). The controversy around me was fostered by IBM (IBM VP Bob Sutor publicly blogged a call to "do something about" me) and I believe the excuse was some strange idea that I could not represent the Technical Committee's views to the BRM or that I would not be diligent in pushing for resolution of the Australian comments...this was strange since I had submitted most of the Australian comments in the first place. To resolve this, Standards Australia and I agreed on a very limited brief for the delegation (we would vote abstain on issues we did not have explicit positions on from the Technical Committee.) I have not been paid by MicroSoft for any work relating to Standards Australia or at ISO SC34 or at the BRM. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As it has been 11 months since I requested the changes that affect me, and since there has been no editorial or other response or discussion, I will be editing the material directly to correct the innuendo. I believe this is fair and the changes I make will comply with Wikipedia policy in that I regard the material as tending to defame me, and because it lack references, and where it has references these do not support the material. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "EU: Irregularities" :
    • .
    • {{cite web |url= |title= EU: Irregularities reported in OOXML ISO process | publisher=IDABC | date=[[August 28]], [[2007]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge from article "Office Open XML Ballot Results"[edit]

I'd like to discuss the proposed merge of Office Open XML Ballot Results into this article. My position on this is to remove all non-notable and unverifiable content and then Merge. I don't think the current content justifies an extra article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That won't leave much than the the ballot results. hAl (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That page was moved to Office Open XML Intermediate 5 Month Ballot Results.[1] I think that the ballot results should be described in this article about the standardisation, and it does not warrant its own article. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Support You may proceed with merge per WP:SILENCE. Fleet Command (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, it's history now, but don't trim too many of the juicy points. The subversive trick to preserve a provisional listing of the hilarious pack: URI scheme by submitting the same Internet Draft again and again was entertaining. – (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed essay[edit]

A long and interesting essay by an active participant in the standardization effort was added to the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles aren't the right place to publish interesting essays - Wikipedia is a place to summarize information published elsewhere in reliable sources. So, with regret, I removed it again. The text is recoverable from the article history if the author wants to retrieve it for publication elsewhere. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Extremely" contentious[edit]

I do think it's fair to say that this standardization process was not only contentious, it was extremely contentious. I've added one citation that uses that exact term. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a ridicolous way to phrase en encyclopedic comment. It is pure POV because the amount of controversy is is not quantifiable and if you want to cite some POV information then put in in the article but not in the lead of the article as it it were some absolute truth. I also completly disagree. In reality if was a small group of mainly Microsoft competitors and the useual anti-MS OSS followers that very loudly objected to a format that originated from Microsoft. Most people even in ICT could not care less. They just keep using the old binary format as they have been doing for ages anyways. It mostly had significance in the very small world of people dealing with standardization processes and amongst some fanatical oss followers. As you were actually part of at least one of those groups you might see things from a very different but not very neutral perspective. hAl (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The other view of the world is that it was Microsoft, people paid by Microsoft, and people from companies and organizations who said what Microsoft wanted them to say on one side, and everyone else who cared on the other side. More people cared about this one than about any other IT standard in recent memory. Even the chair of the WG (Alex Brown) says that the process was messy. "Extremely contentious" is a correct description. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You yourself were a part of this standardization proces oppising the standardization. You lost and it seems like felt agrieved by that. I do not think your point of view is very objective on the matter. Extremely is not encyclopedic by any means. It has no value as such in the lead of the article. If you want to change "contentious" by "messy" I have no objections however I think that would not be an improvement either.hAl (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys could agree on "controversial"? Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems that hAl and I rarely agree on anything. I'd agree that it was messy, though. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is as big as the rest of the article. I'm surprised it was not a section in this article. What type of sources would be necessary for the controversy to be encyclopedic? (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Standardization of Office Open XML. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)