[LINK] Social computing for government and business

[Janet Hawtin]

On 7/30/07, Tom Worthington <Tom.Worthington at tomw.net.au> wrote:

> have complex overlapping, fluid groups. Even formal political parties
> have factions and, as when there is a conscience vote, someone can be
> in several different groups with conflicting aims simultaneously.
> Much the same behavior occurs at technical standards meetings.

I sincerely hope that the standards meetings are about whether the proposed
material complies with the requirements for an Australian Standard.
This is what the function of the process is for.
If being a member of an affiliated group or a partner of the proposer
conflicts with that outcome then the process is not structured 'in the
public interest'.

I can understand that these professional relationships have a strong
pull in normal circumstances, but being a representative of the public
interest on a standards group is surely one of those times when we
look at whether the material complies.

If it does then fine.
If it doesnt then it would do a disservice to the standards
organisation to pass it.
It would also be an indication to the proposer that they can submit
any old cruft to Australian organisations because 'having the numbers'
would be more important than making a durable standard which enables
participation by Australians.

If the proposer wants to make an Australian standard then it should be
prepared to make a proposal which is functional, accurate, compliant
with other standards, and generally not compromising for any parties
which interact with it or vote for it.

imho The standard process means nowt without that kind of commitment.

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick here and if so I apologise.
It is just that internationally people seem to be having problems with
just this situation.

>From Brendan Scott's OSWALD Newsletter:
The OOXML Saga Continues: Stacking the Deck in Denmark
http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php
http://www.ds.dk/3654

Janet