[MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to discontinue the AdHoc Group

[Peter Constable]

> Finally, I think the tacit agreement to keep OFF and MSOT in synch is an inevitable point of friction for any ad hoc group, because that can't be fairly managed in a way that doesn't give Microsoft an effective veto on innovation — even if that veto is only exercised in inaction.

I don’t think this is quite right, looking at history of the past many years.

Microsoft as owners and stewards of the OT spec have at times provided a context in which MS and other industry collaborators could innovate on the font format and feed those innovations into OFF. In those situations, that context provided just the kind of buffer you describe. Variations is an familiar example of that.

But when MS has been inactive, that has not prevented innovations going into OFF. On the contrary, there are several counterexamples. SVG and CBDT tables are well-known examples. But there have also been several OTL features that were added to the feature registry or descriptions of features significantly revised (some of which you contributed) that came into OFF directly without needing any action on MS’ part.

Wrt OFF, AFAIFK MS has never had any more veto influence than any other company that might comment on a proposal to say, “not sufficiently reviewed” or “needs revision” or some such comments indicating concern with the proposed change.


Peter

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:36 PM
To: mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to discontinue the AdHoc Group

On 23092020 12:20 pm, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
While there are clearly untenable problems with the AHG, it has, in all its better moments, functioned as a buffer between individuals who just want to discuss and collaborate on font technology and the ISO bureaucracy.
What, in your opinion, has changed between “this AHG” and “the AHG in all its better moments”?

The fact that is has become dysfunctional to the point that members are actively proposing to ask SC92 mirrors to discontinue it, and that the nature of how the group operates and communicates, and the inability or unwillingness to use better methods, inhibits the kinds of collaboration that members want. Finally, I think the tacit agreement to keep OFF and MSOT in synch is an inevitable point of friction for any ad hoc group, because that can't be fairly managed in a way that doesn't give Microsoft an effective veto on innovation — even if that veto is only exercised in inaction.
 OFF is very likely to be at the end of one or more of those channels, but I still want a buffer between the collaboration and the ISO process: just a better one than this AHG.
Procedurally, the AHG is the only available buffer mechanism between outside collaborators and the ISO process. The only other alternative is direct WG involvement through National Bodies by all involved in this AHG.

Correction: the AHG is the only available buffer mechanism between outside collaborators and the ISO process that is procedurally constituted and managed by ISO. My point is that being procedurally constituted and managed by ISO is exactly the problem: the procedures are both arcane and obsolete, and are not helpful to collaboration. Ergo, collaboration should happen elsewhere. How the products of such collaboration feed into OFF formal drafts and ratification is really moot. This is why I have not joined others in calling for the AHG to be discontinued: if it is a useful pathway for proposals to be submitted, rather than going through national standards bodies, then it serves a purpose. Some people, as indicated, may prefer to go through national standards bodies. What the AHG doesn't seem useful for is actively collaborating on innovation in font technology.

JH



--



John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks Ltd    www.tiro.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiro.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6bb68ace7c0246d5e34808d860004352%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637364901527271908&sdata=HUnDFsMdKS850wsAxoHphs8YEfvo%2Fq4OnyPY6a%2FvRqk%3D&reserved=0>

Salish Sea, BC        tiro at tiro.com<mailto:tiro at tiro.com>



NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently

dealing with email on only two days per week, usually

Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted

by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please

use some other method of communication. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200923/7198ec7c/attachment-0001.html>