Ecma International Comments on the BRM


Ecma International released its comments on the BRM.

The Ballot Resolution Meeting was a very productive and positive meeting, where National Bodies’ representatives worked together very hard, resolving many issues, to come to an improved final DIS 29500 text…”

The point I have been making about the success of the BRM is based on the the very simple and well understood principle that the BRM (and the months leading up to it of work) are about improving the specification. Please see my earlier posts (this one, and this one) regarding the details of my opinion.

Comments (1)

  1. Luc Bollen says:

    Jason,  I think that everybody agrees that the revised text will be better than the initial text.

    However, if the initial text is awful and the revised one is a little bit less awful, this is indeed an improvement, but it does not mean that the text is now of sufficient quality to become an ISO standard.  As stated by Antonis Christofides, a Greek delegate at the BRM : "if the original text got 1 out of 10 and the BRM managed to improve it to 1.1, it is somewhat misleading to call it a success." (http://elot.ece.ntua.gr/te48/ooxml/brm-clarifications)

    What makes the real success of a BRM is not to have a *better* text, it is to have a *good* text.  That’s why a BRM is not needed if the NBs consider that the initial text is already "good enough".

    Please note also that the Ecma comments (wisely) don’t talk about a "success", even less an "unqualified success" but rather about a "productive and positive meeting".  This is something I can buy.

Skip to main content