[LINK] re: Australian consultation on proposed OOXML standard

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Tom Worthington wrote:
> I wrote Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:01:53 +1000:
>> ... I had a telephone call from SA on Wednesday to say that there was 
<snip>
> As a Participating Member of JTC1, Australia has an obligation to vote 
> on this document. The options open are:
> 
>     * Approve
>     * Approve with comment
>     * Abstain
>     * Disapprove with comment (disapproval of the DIS for technical 
> reasons to be stated, with proposals for changes that would make the 
> document acceptable (acceptance of these proposals shall be referred to 
> the NB concerned for confirmation that the vote can be changed to 
> approval).
<snip>
It is worth noting the Keypoints of Productivity Commission research report, 
Standard Setting and Laboratory Accreditation, released on 16 November 2006.
> Standard setting
> 
> Standards Australia should make the following improvements:
> 
>     * systematically consider costs and benefits before developing or revising a standard, and publish reasons for such decisions
>     * ensure more balanced stakeholder representation
>     * reduce barriers to volunteer and public participation
>     * improve accessibility, transparency and timeliness, including an improved appeals and complaints mechanism.
> 
> All government bodies should rigorously analyse impacts before making a standard mandatory by way of regulation and ensure it is the minimum necessary to achieve the policy objective. Each Australian Government agency should also provide the funding necessary to ensure free or low cost access to such standards, including Australian Standards.
<http://www.pc.gov.au/study/standards/finalreport/index.html>

and ofcourse Glen's tale.
<http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2007-July/075197.html>




-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414 869202