Thanks for clearing that up for me – if I were in it for the power, I guess I'd have to chose a different standardisation organisation.

:o)

For example, how many delegations came prepared with an NB position on the creation of WG6, considering that topic was not on the agenda?

Well, the Danish delegation did. We knew that AHG3 would meet before the plenary and on the meeting in Denmark the week before the plenary. we had a good and thorough discussion on our position of creating WG6 – a discussion, btw, where I again was totally in line with the IBM position. The Danish delegation came well prepared, and (I can of course only speak for myself) I felt no need to be there in person – I'd already had my say in the meeting here in Denmark.

:o)

In OASIS the TC's can move the work from one stage to another, from Working Draft, to Committee Draft to Public Review Draft to Committee Specification entirely by vote of the TC. Only the final vote to approve as an OASIS Specification goes to the entire OASIS membership.

However, in SC34, most of the smaller transitions require approval by SC34 NBs. The WG itself has very little power. It is for working, not for deciding.

In any case, if you don't attend the Plenary, then you can only influence decisions that were on the draft agenda. But the most interesting things are those that come up without advance notice. For example, how many delegations came prepared with an NB position on the creation of WG6, considering that topic was not on the agenda? That is the argument for attending the plenaries, being able to react to any surprises. You simply cannot anticipate everything by attending an NB call in advance.

Certainly some work can be done via teleconference, but in the end the WG only makes recommendations and you must attend the Plenary sessions to really have a full voice in the SC34 decision making.

Remember that the members of SC34 are nations (or – national bodies). So you really don't need to go to SC34 plenaries. You can participate in your national body and form the opinion of the national body there.

I haven't attended a plenary since Kyoto, and I still would rank my "powers" on OOXML development as "moderately high", but it is always fun to go to the plenaries, though. Do also note that the position of each country on most of the subjects of a plenary has normally been decided before they even go to the plenaries.

But – isn't the SC34/WG6 construct almost the same as the one of OASIS/ODFTC? That you do the technical work in the TC (or in ISO-terms, the WG) and then some OASIS board makes the final decision on whether a draft of e.g. ODF 1.2 sohuld become an OASIS standard?

Anyway – let me finish off by saying that I firmly believe that ODF is best maintained in ODF TC and not in e.g. WG6. You guys in ODf TC have done a fine job so far, and I see no reason for reallocating the development/maintenance of ODF to ISO … just because "we can".

I do know that quite a few people in Microsoft would like to have ODF maintained in ISO, but one of the advantages of being an IBM drone is that I get to dissagree with Microsoft.

:o)

In any case, any company will look at this in terms of the return on investment. Currently I attend zero SC34 WG teleconferences and attend plenaries only rarely. It is more about risk management than positive investment.

If we start up WG6 teleconferences I'll probably attend some of those. But it is hard for me to argue for greater engagement with SC34.

Scrap ISO. They have a stupid system of physical meetings around the planet.

I don´t have the money to travel to such meetings.
You'll be delighted to know, that we in SC34/WG4 do the majority of our work on teleconferences – just like ODF TC. There is no requirement to show up for the physical meetings. There are quite a few participants on the bi-weekly calls that I have never met IRL – they simply participate through the phone calls.

:o)

Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://www.idippedut.dk
SC34/WG4

Scrap ISO. They have a stupid system of physical meetings around the planet.

I don´t have the money to travel to such meetings.