[MPEG-OTSPEC] To Young-Kwon Lim & Gary Sullivan & others

Thu Sep 24 23:11:16 CEST 2020

Since an email I sent to this list in the past has been cited, on the one hand, as asserting MS dominance and, on the other, as somewhat misguided, I’d like to provide some perspective on my intent at the time.

A general concern I have had over the years is that it’s actually fairly difficult to get the attention of a critical mass of implementers to discuss or review proposals pertaining to OFF or the OT spec. And that’s not because of bad intent or desire to obstruct progress on anybody’s part; it’s just that people in different companies have different priorities, and rarely does that include constant monitoring of discussion or proposals and quickly reviewing and providing feedback. Even great ideas can progress slowly because it’s not a current priority for more than a small minority at a given time.

For those preparing proposals for variations in 2016, many people’s day-job responsibilities were adjusted to give adequate attention to this work, and so people were actively engaged and reviewing on the preliminary proposals. And that enabled rapid progress to bring substantial and mature proposals to the AHG that had been carefully reviewed by many in advance.

But that was very much an exception to the norm. Far more often, people are busy with their own priorities. And sometimes that has meant that a proposal was brought to the AHG and considered for a draft when not many others were paying attention.

I’ve remarked on this at other times recently. I recently pointed out a specific instance of new OTL features that went into Amd 1 of OFF:2019 that either contradicted other parts of the spec or else (as bad or worse) assumed software implementations for lookup processing would have special behaviour based on the triggering feature that referenced the lookup. When these features were proposed, the proposed text for the feature descriptions was available for review for some time. But the serious problem in the description went unnoticed during that period, and the problem got incorporated into OFF:2019 Amd 1. I was among those subscribed to this list at the time and so might have caught it then… if I were paying attention. But it came at a time when my employer was shifting my priorities in other directions. I only noticed recently when I had a need to review each of the changes in Amd 1. It turned out the root cause was in another existing feature description, and the original problem dates back at least to 2002 if not to 1997. So, I don’t fault the authors for the proposed addition, who were just following existing patterns for very similar cases. But I do fault lack of current attention and review for allowing the problem to get repeated.

My mail in February 2016 pertained to the same general issue. Something had been proposed, the proposed revision was available for some time, but it wasn’t evident to me that many were paying attention and reviewing. I certainly knew nobody at my company had reviewed it. I admit I was particularly sensitive in that case because it involved the OS/2 table, which historically had been defined specifically for metrics used on Microsoft’s OS/2 and Windows platforms, in contrast to metrics in the hhea table used on other platforms. So, my sense was that a major product implementing that spec _would_ be impacted, with unclear implications for millions of applications running on that platform and many more users.

The intent of my mail was never to say that a change in OFF (or even in the OS/2 table portion of OFF) could not be made unless Microsoft approved. My intent was only to say that, given the potential to result in _reduced interoperability_ between products, it was unwise to make changes without confirming that there has been adequate review.

I acknowledge that my tone in that mail was alarmist, and might have been read by some as assuming some privilege. To the extent that was the case, I concede my wording was misguided.

And to the extent that my message appeared to suggest that not *all* interested parties should have equal opportunity to review, I agree that such a suggestion would not be consistent with how the AHG and ISO in general operates. But while my choice of words may have been misguided in creating that impression, I think I can say it wasn’t actually my intent to suggest that. I’ve participated in ISO processes since 2000 in multiple committees, with considerable activity in at some level in connection to 3 different committees. I’m very familiar with ISO processes and principles, including open and equal opportunity for all participants, and I endorse and support that.

Peter

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:18 PM
To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org>; Youngkwon Lim <yklwhite at gmail.com>
Cc: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] To Young-Kwon Lim & Gary Sullivan & others

Behdad,

At ~1:19:00 into your recorded video, you are making a false claim about Peter and I having a long private conversation where you are alleging that a secretive discussion took place for which an outcome is not known. The is a misrepresentation of the facts, and, this time, it appears that your misrepresentation of the facts is deliberate!

If you have such a clear recollection of the events that happened in February 2016, when Peter sent his somewhat misguided email (that seem to have aggravated you so much, even though it was addressed to me, not you), if you remembered all the minute details of the conversations that happened at that time - you are undoubtedly aware that your allegations of Peter and I having a private and secretive meeting are totally false, and that the conversation actually happened in public, out in the open, and over email – neither in person nor behind the closed doors, as you allege!
https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2016-February/000674.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2016-February%2F000674.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699195842&sdata=SDBym%2BlmZQnftkbyqufLRts2eA%2Bi3va1nKZiUwLt08E%3D&reserved=0>

Let me quote specific parts of my email response to Peter that you seem to have forgotten about, I hope these particular passages would put you concerns at ease:

“The reality of ISO process is that *all* interested parties are given equal opportunities to propose, discuss and object to new features and everybody is treated equally and with respect.”

“Yes, OFF originated as Microsoft and Adobe contribution to the ISO. However, as the established ISO standard, it is now subject to ISO process and policies that, among others, require equal opportunities being given to every participant - experts from Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Monotype and many individual experts are all members of the ISO ad-hoc group (as you can see from the group membership list) are represented there. You are free to innovate and experiment and introduce new ideas in your platform implementation but new ideas can also be contributed by people who have no association with Microsoft. This is why having an open, industry-wide forum that is dedicated to discussing new proposals and, ultimately, after proper review and consideration is given, making them part of the ISO standard is so important!”

As you can see, the original email from Peter was sent on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016, and the issue was resolved the very next day – on Sunday Feb. 14th. If there ever was an attempt to “assert dominance” as you were alleging, that dominance didn’t survive for much longer than one fateful weekend!

You are also making allegations that since that fateful secret private meeting [that never took place] “nothing went into the Open Font Format without Microsoft approval”. At 1:19:30 into your recorded video, you are saying that after this email [from Peter] “the Open Font Format contribution pipeline was completely clogged, controlled by Microsoft”!

I am truly puzzled by this yet another demonstrably false misrepresentation – a cursory glance at the email archive shows active discussions continued throughout February – May of 2016, with many participants contributing to the AHG work:
https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2016-February/date.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2016-February%2Fdate.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699205837&sdata=h5xh3IWHqSPsgMTnHvKdIcTEA9tKo1SLqG0AB3%2BpOP0%3D&reserved=0>
https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2016-March/date.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2016-March%2Fdate.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699205837&sdata=pYcZd9Y7UNKzBUFor6ciqBqJW8lfGYIOjgpENuyiQEI%3D&reserved=0>
https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2016-April/date.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2016-April%2Fdate.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699205837&sdata=TqrJdcNKXCovfvZTqB1QwJmy23HSqBeaEz7ZViIpzfA%3D&reserved=0>
https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2016-May/date.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2016-May%2Fdate.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699215829&sdata=CygCurEmjg08pszuxWvNZUOOfCsX4wN2RVRGazhmUC8%3D&reserved=0>
Apparently, that email didn’t intimidate anyone but you, or so it seems.

More so, at 2:12:50, your presentation includes another glaring inaccuracy (to put it politely) stating that “Vlad never commented on Peter’s [email] reserving veto power …, no one confronted him …” – I am flabbergasted how such a long, confrontational email I wrote in response to Peter (see link above) could possibly escape your watchful eye? So, since you’ve made your sanctimonious claim that OFF is not a “legit avenue” you could use, I can’t help but wonder – is there anything legit about your complaint?

At 2:45:55, you offer a recount of our conversations earlier this year. You claim that as a major innovator in this space you’ve been blocked [allegedly, by me] to contribute to this AHG for the last 10 years. You’re saying that “the AHG doesn’t work for me, it has blocked me from innovating for the last 4 years”. Another cursory glance into the AHG email archive (https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699215829&sdata=guFKJm%2BKcuXB%2F4ojjU4GY45yhByigyWrYoTeN005vzQ%3D&reserved=0>) shows that you’ve been a participant in the work of the AHG at least since January 2010, contributing 46 times up until April 2018 (yes, I counted). You are accusing me of blocking your complaint, while conveniently omitting the fact that you never offered your answer to my one simple question to substantiate any of your claims – your only response was “I am tired of any explanations!”.

During the last couple of months, you made quite a few allegations that were proven demonstrably not true, and I am yet waiting to see at least one that can be backed up by supporting evidence. At 2:55:30 in your video, you are saying that you said you lost all respect for me when replying to my message where I ‘touted’ the AHG success yet again … however, the reality appears to be somewhat different – you “lost a lot of respect for me” (https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2020-August/001965.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.aau.at%2Fpipermail%2Fmpeg-otspec%2F2020-August%2F001965.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699225826&sdata=IcsXkhP1QfqK4OzTZwmF2%2B7h9jLhijtoVtoftgn19Fk%3D&reserved=0>) after I sent an email message pointing out some major inconsistencies in your recount of the events of 2016. Overall, I find your summary of our conversations to be veracity-challenged, but that’s on you!

I’ve heard you, but I do not agree with you – for all the reasons stated above.
Vladimir

P.S. You’ve been making numerous claims of impropriety, insulting people publicly and attacking their character and motives, demanding other people to apologize to you … Has it ever occurred to you that it may be you who owes an apology to Sairus, Alan, Peter, and many other people you insulted in passing by your public posts? Your conduct in this AHG and on many public forums is offensive and disrespectful, but again – that’s on you!

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at>> On Behalf Of Behdad Esfahbod
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:20 PM
To: Youngkwon Lim <yklwhite at gmail.com<mailto:yklwhite at gmail.com>>
Cc: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] To Young-Kwon Lim & Gary Sullivan & others

Hi Young,

Thank you for your response. I know it's a lot to ask, but I recorded the following video today with my grievance:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vSLkriYBFs<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FPeorC5yrxRh0MgyBuzxU2P&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699225826&sdata=CX5G%2FcVMWNYl3Gis7S%2FOI%2BFWCS4%2BwZBT8HPPy8SAPUA%3D&reserved=0>

I would like to invite you to watch that and do as you see appropriate.

Thank you,

behdad
http://behdad.org/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FmqROC68vyBsoPVR5U6bXtX%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699235820&sdata=RqHHVku0KUNOsphGXw6bUw9D78%2BuoQ2zMrHIUpJQUxI%3D&reserved=0>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM Youngkwon Lim <yklwhite at gmail.com<mailto:yklwhite at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,

This is Youngkwon Lim, the convenor of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 3 MPEG Systems Convenor. As I'm on the reflector as well, you can write to the reflector on anything you would like to discuss with me. At this point I don't understand the needs for any private communication.

One thing I would like to remind you is that you should follow ISO Code of Conduct while you are participating this AHG or any other MPEG activities.  You can find the document from here, https://www.iso.org/publication/PUB100397.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FqtH0C73wzpCmzErDHBINNc&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699235820&sdata=TqveFeQpF3NbKIL0nt%2BRRZ%2BgP05tBudibubZjdZeDH4%3D&reserved=0>  I'm concerned that some comments you have posted and referenced in your previous email seems violating it.

In addition, Gary Sullivan is currently not serving as the Chairman of the SC 29 and in any case I don't see anything to report to SC 29 level yet so you can discuss with me through this reflector first.

Hope to continue productive discussion.

Sincerely,
Young

------ Original Message ------
From: "Behdad Esfahbod" <behdad at behdad.org<mailto:behdad at behdad.org>>
To: "mpeg-otspec" <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>>
Sent: 09/22/20 16:54:37
Subject: [MPEG-OTSPEC] To Young-Kwon Lim & Gary Sullivan & others

Hello,

I don't have your email addresses. Can you please reach out to me privately so I can submit my complaint to you when it's ready?

In the meantime, I like everyone on the list to check what Vlad is doing just now on github:

https://twitter.com/behdadesfahbod/status/1308524396105969664<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FDE8BC82xAMhjXOmoCMhnX_&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699235820&sdata=U273Y%2BV%2BgoS2EOqZxRftqsJTOtv7JnippE2dPAA9GdI%3D&reserved=0>
https://github.com/MPEGGroup/OpenFontFormat/issues/1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FLeRvC9ryBDhmzRJGHPgVdR&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699245814&sdata=shIOIRvkhSh0A82uP8QQ8A83gSxsQYgdNHDVZGSIJqg%3D&reserved=0>

behdad
http://behdad.org/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprotect-us.mimecast.com%2Fs%2FmqROC68vyBsoPVR5U6bXtX%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb387a3487fed44bf606108d860be862e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637365718699245814&sdata=MkO5vIwk4NYZBihGEF8ycGOfJnIang6IbsoRtelU8qc%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200924/c2ef0eb6/attachment-0001.html>