Halloween documents redux?

Looks like ten years hence, the spectre of leaky email systems seems to have hit MS, again. In the Halloween Documents episode where internal MS strategies to counter open source were leaked, we see a similar one here in sunny Singapore. See in this, another familiar leaky situation has arisen. I am indeed glad to note that the contents were from a Microsoft source. Sweet. Like I have alluded to in previous posts, people in MS are good people. It is when they don the MS persona, that they become greedy. I am glad that there is atleast one person who is resisting that. More power to him or her.

I can confirm that I did receive those documents. And now that it is out there (actually, after checking the docs I received, the 32 page pdf is incomplete – alas the source was just leaking some). Gee, I wonder if it is their MS Exchange machine (which is supposed to replace all of SG government’s email system Real Soon Now) that is having a problem?

I am amused with the simpleton mistakes in the letters from the two IT associations. All I can say is that, in defence of my council members, we did not give two hoots to the form letter astroturfing done by MS. Support cannot be seen to be from form letters. They have to have credibility. These letters have none. We never discussed it or even bothered to have a look at it.

It is unfortunate that an organization like that will stoop to such a low level – wait a minute, that is what they are good at. So, it is par for the course.


  1. Is there anything to be done to report matter to higher authority, such as the ISO headquarters? Is there any investigation being initiated here?
    If technical committee voted disapproved while lobbying like this might have cause the committee head to disregard the technical committee, I don’t think it is right.

    1. Frankly, it was just some half baked set of documents replete with errors – the wonders of cluelessness combined with templates. I am sure my fellow council members did not give any credence to it. If you want to do something, you need to find a smoking gun. Something that points to wrong doings however subtle. Go dig.

      1. Yes, I believe the chairman has not give an answer to whether why he disregard to the technical committee. With these type of lobbying, at most it would reach abstain, and not even approve. With no satisfied answer to the technical committee, or the answer has been shown clearly, higher authority should be consulted. Singapore’s vote should be at least a No or at most an Abstain and definitely not a Yes. Lobbying should not work well, or else there’s corruption. Without an investigation, how can we find smoking gun? Just like previous ms cases, for example, the vista-capable class suit by consumers, we will not know if they hide. I believe in Europe, things will be investigated thoroughly. I also hope ISO will give a satisfy answer. I believe ISO should accept quality standards instead of a standards full of problems, not properly resolved. Now Norway is protesting, I wish other countries would protest if it’s unfair vote also.

      2. Please do not confuse the process. The decision, unfortunate as it was, was a collective one in which it met the requisite >=66% in favour as per ISO rules. It is not a chairman-only vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.