[Xiph-Advocacy] Fwd: Open multimedia standards in the Norwegian government

[Monty Montgomery]

Petter,

This is the primary email in the exchange I had with Audun Vaaler.
There were several other messages in the thread, but I don't think
they contained anything else substantial.  We did not, I think, submit
anything more formal at the time; however it does indeed make sense to
arrange and flesh out the information below into a formal
document/page on the Xiph website as interest in our organization and
work has obviously grown since then.

It was also true at the time that we were acting as a self-signing
standardization body as we'd not yet had much success interesting the
IETF or other established Free/Open-friendly standardization groups in
codec work.  Since then other IETF participants have joined our
interest in unencumbered formats and the picture within the IETF is no
longer so bleak.  As such, we hope that the time is coming when we can
focus on research & development and submit our work as an input to
standardization into an organization (such as the IETF).

Until then, though, we're very much taking the stance "You can come
along with us if you like, but we're not waiting up!" :-)

Monty
Xiph.Org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Monty Montgomery <monty at xiph.org>
Date: Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Open multimedia standards in the Norwegian government
To: Audun Vaaler <audun.vaaler at hiof.no>
Cc: Børre Ludvigsen <b at hiof.no>, Ralph Giles <rillian at xiph.org>,
pfm at chesspark.com


Hello,

> On behalf of the Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration
> and Reform (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad.html?id=339)
> we are preparing a report on the use of open multimedia standards
> (audio, video, images and graphics) on government web sites (both
> on the local, regional and national level). The report will lead to an
> official recommendation on which standards to use when publishing
> public information.

> Xiph standards (since they are open and royalty-free) are central in
> the report, and likely candidates for recommendation. However, all
> standards must be evaluated according to a set of pre-defined
> criteria.

We are a small volunteer organization, and as such we may not have
ready documentation to fufill your specific requests.  However, I'll
try to provide what you need, so let me ask a few more detailed
questions (as well as pass this along to our business counsel, who
will probably better recognize what it is you need).

> we have been unable to find authoritative documentation on
> the following points:
>
>  * Openness of the development process, including non-discriminatory
>   participation for all interested parties

I assume you mean something technically specific by
'non-discriminatory participation'.

Although we are a public, non-profit entity and our development
process is open and transparent for all to observe, we do not have
formal criteria for participation.

We accept direct input from any interested party (our development
lists, meetings and forums are open to all comers).  Final technical
decisions rest with the project heads in the event the development
group does not reach consensus.  In summary, the development dynamic
of a specific project module is flat with a single defacto project
head.

>  * Equal and sufficient influence for all parties during decision-
>   making processes

Could you point me to a technical definition?  Eg, are you referring
to a voting process, or are you referring to public input formally
being on an equal footing with corporate input...?

>  * Xiph's point of contact in Norway (if any)

We do not currently have a specific dedicated contact in Norway.

> I'm aware that the criteria above may be redundant given Xiph's nature and
> inherent openness, but we would be very grateful for any clarifying
> documentation. This would be especially helpful when comparing Xiph's
> processes to those of MPEG and other traditional standardisation
> organisations.

I think you may summarize the overarching difference as "Xiph is much,
much, much smaller" and our development practices reflect that.  A
second difference is that we do not attempt to exert any intellectual
property control over the standards we develop.  I'm not referring to
royalty rights, but rather that anyone (public or corporate) is free
to build on, modify or improve our standards without restriction, in a
sense taking 'equal participation' to a logical extreme.  We reserve
only naming rights, ie, you may not call something 'Ogg' unless it is
correctly and fully interoperable with our Ogg standards.

I realize I have not yet answered your questions in the form you
require, however we're primarily a research and development
organization, and engagement with government entities is rather new to
us.  Hopefully I can be more helpful with a little more information as
to exactly what you require.

Monty
Xiph.Org