I am paraphrasing the famous principle and foundation of any judicial system.
Why did I bring this up. Matusow believe that there is no hanky-panky in Portugal. He says everything is above board. I am sure it is, but that does not mean some important principles had not been subverted. Modern days corruption practice are all “above board” on the surface, just looks at how much is paid to “consultants” for their dubious services in securing contracts. Hence, the question in Portugal is whether the TC or whatsoever is open enough. The argument from the other camp is an important principle for the series of meetings, “openness”, “had not be done”. Therefore, at the bare minimum, if the TC do indeed wholeheartedly believe it has openness, it must demonstrate it under the “seen to be done” principle. Merely followed the correct procedure does not ensure openness, and it is always more difficult to argue openness if it is up to the existing members to set up their own rules, rather than have the rules laid down for them from an oversight body.
The question here is why the participation of two major IT companies are rejected by the TC, especially when one is discussing document formats where both companies has the expertise to contribute, and they are major players in the opponent camp. I don’t care about the first-come-first-serve rules, because although it is generally the best practice, it is just not the correct practice here. Some places must be reserved for whoever who have a stake in the discussion and the best practice procedure is to send them the invitation and reserve places for them. Then, for the rest of us, it is first-come-first-serve.
Space limitation argument is a joke. There is definitely rooms that can accommodate more than 30 people in an institute where meetings are common. Achieving the beauty of 20 member limit while excluding big players, those that can and is prepared to try make a difference to the office application landscape (the reason for all the file format war) does not seem a justifiable aim. To permit existing members to choose who to admit looks more like a cartel than openness when it can be demonstrated that the limit of 20 members is excluding a lot of interested party, especially your competition/opponents.