Comments on: SNV Comments Resolution Meeting on Microsoft OOXML

By: Thomas Higgenson

Thomas Higgenson — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:28:43 +0000

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. — David Friedman

By: Theo Schmidt

Theo Schmidt — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:49:44 +0000

I have since studied the rules of the SNV (Schweizerische Normen Vereinigung) in some detail and it is clear that they do not allow Mr. Thomann’s procedure. They absolutely require a majority of 75% for any proposal (and a quorum of 40%). There is no mention of simple majorities nor that the chairman may decide against the rules. All he has is a final ballot, which is useful in the case of a tie-break.
Mr. Thomann’s procedure to use the rules as long as there is a 75% consensus and to use a simple majority if there isn’t, is unheard of and illogical, as then the 75% requirement of the rules would be useless and redundant. Failing a 75% majority to either side, the only possible outcome is some version of ABSTAIN. I have communicated this to the SNV leadership, who have to decide whether they abide by their own rules and anger the Ecma/Microsoft side, or let Mr. Thomann use his own rules and lose credibility. Unfortunately a lose-lose situation for everybody, whichever way it goes.

By: William Graham

William Graham — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:42:00 +0000

So if 100% of the people vote “no” the result will be “abstain”? My goodness, what would it take to get a vote of “no”? The Devil making deals? ( oh, wait, it looks like he’s already done that ).

By: Theo Schmidt

Theo Schmidt — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:20:55 +0000

Thank you Mr. Thomann for the correction. Can you explain why we don’t get “NO with comments” if more than 50% vote NO? Or viewed the other way around: why it doesn’t require 75% to vote YES in order to get APPROVE [presumably with comments]? It seems to me that whichever way you put it, the voting procedure is 25% skewed toward approval? If this is correct, why is it legitimate?

By: Hans-Rudolf Thomann

Hans-Rudolf Thomann — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:11:38 +0000

Let me correct Theo Schmidt’s statement:
The Swiss vote will be APPROVE if 50% or more votes YES. It will be ABSTAIN if more than 50% vote NO.
Thus, after all, it is a simple majority vote as announced at the kick-off meeting (30 May 2007).

By: Theo Schmidt

Theo Schmidt — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:38:07 +0000

At present there are two approximately equally large opposed sides. Consensus may be reached on some technical points, but never on the main points. In the SNV meeting the conveyor simply decided all issues which didn’t achieve consensus himself - in the favour of ECMA-Microsoft. It appears that the relevent SNV committee will not be able to vote on the key issues and that the outcome will be in any case in favour of ECMA-Microsoft unless the public side has a majority of 75%, and even in this case the Swiss national vote will simply be “abstain” rather than “no, with comments.” I am not sure whether this is a legitimate course of action for SNV to take.

By: Tonnerre

Tonnerre — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:17:47 +0000

Actually, what happened doesn’t really conforming to what Mr. Sebestyen announced. It wasn’t decision-making, it was a slaughtering of nonconformance. We haven’t reached consensus, it was created artificially.
This is of course a different way of finding a winning majority.