decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:30 AM EDT

The details are out now. Jomar Silva, a delegate from Brazil, which voted No, has now done what he said he would do and has posted what he saw and heard at the BRM. It is a deeply shocking tale of maneuvering the delegates to vote against their will by presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice of options, all designed, according to what I gather from his account, to get a positive result for Microsoft. I'd certainly like to see the Directives that support the choices as presented. Silva talks about where the numbers behind the infamous slide asserting that "98% of issues were resolved" came from, and you'll see how it misrepresents what really happened. Best of all, he provides documents that support what he tells us. No wonder the EU Commission is investigating. What can I say? If a format can win "approval" as a "standard" only like this, is it really a standard?

Here's the full story:
To begin the history, on sunday evening, before the beginning of the BRM, at the Heads of Delegations (HoD) meeting they were warned that on Wednesday we would have to make a decision about “what to do with the ECMA’s responses that could not be discussed”.

The working methods adopted in the first two days of meeting (and at the paper it works very good), each country (in fact the so-called National Bodies or NBs and if I am not mistaken was 33) could present for discussion one of the ECMA’s responses of their interest (ie, in alphabetical order each NB presented a problem). The debate then started and if the theme was controversial and causes more than 10 or 15 minutes of discussion, the NBs involved in the discussion were invited to discuss “off-line” and the proposals was recorded in a backlog. Any discussion ended in “editing instructions to the editor” and anything that does not contain “editing instructions to the editor” was simply ignored (so resolved…).

The result of that is that until Friday, even two complete rounds were held (ie that there was NBs that only proposed one discussion)… explanation to that: lack of time (which incidentally, explains all other decisions taken there, ok?).

During the debates, some discussions had expanded and covered more than one ECMA’s responses (or sometimes different responses dealt with related themes), and this explains the high degree of items discussed (or as I prefer to call “touched”) during the BRM (withdrawn from this document, the final document of BRM [PDF]): 189 responses or 18.4% of the total (is that the amount of discussed items expected on an International Evaluation of a so important theme specification? Imagine if your country’s constitution was writ[ten] using that method, with only 18% of its laws discussed).

The decisions taken day by day can be found in this document, “edited notes of the BRM” [PDF] but I admit that this is a confusing document. One example is that we can see that there existed a voting regarding the transformation of the specification into a Multi-Part standard (page 7), in which Brazil presented an objection. This voting result (and related Brazilian objection) was not transported to the final document (I think that someone forget to copy that to the final document, or a decision with that importance doesn’t need to be recorded ?).

Furthermore, I reserve the right to not comment here what conduced to the adoption of this proposal, which actually transforms the OpenXML (or DIS 29500) in five International Standards that may have their “own life” (the only difference between those and five “traditional” standards is its shared numbering , DIS 29500-1, 29500-2… DIS 29500-5). Wonderfull, isn’t it ? (a 6.000+ pages-five-International-Standards fast-track… really amazing)…

When we reached Wednesday, we were presented four options of “destination” to the other answers (ie 81.6% of the total). They were only four options and one of them must be chosen (at that moment I’ve remembered the movie “Sofia’s Choice”):

1 - All rejected.

2 - All approved.

3 - The ITTF decides everything.

4 - Decision by vote in batch, with the possibility of declaration of each individual response vote and / or the definition of a overall vote, as “accepted everything”. (…and Mr. Barta, please note that I’m not using the “default vote” expression here, ok).

Of course, the option was the least ridiculous was option 4 and that’s why it was adopted (in the final document [PDF], page 5 there is a copy of the ballot to vote). Much has been discussed on the possibility that some NBs should cast blocking votes (as vote “Approve to all” to force the approval or “disapprove to all” to force the disapproval), but nothing could be done about it…

At that moment, there was a very interesting protest of a delegation which said that they didn’t went Switzerland to vote, which could be done from home (they were there to discuss) and the answer: “Patience…”.

Another NB protested saying that they only received the document containing the answers to their own questions and didn’t even ha[ve] the opportunity to read and discuss the whole responses document (1027 responses on a 2500+ document). For this reason the option “We do not wish to record any position” was created on the ballot. That highlighted problem also happened on other NBs and there are NBs that simply voted on proposals that they never even read! (This is really cool, right?).

A rule was made that any decision taken at the meeting overwrites the decision taken by “the ballot” vote (ie a decision by “the floor” has greater weight).

At the end of the week, the votes were delivered and the final result (which I also reserve the right not to comment or disclose), the vast majority of the proposals were approved (most by a few votes of “approval by default”…).

I’ve writ[te]e this post just to assure that there is a public explanation to the 98% approval that some companies are using worldwide.

See now how the 98% now doesn’t mean anything? And the 18.4%… this really need to be discussed (and explained by someone).

Finally, the documents cited in the final document [PDF]of BRM (such as an URL to the SC34’s website which is protected by password) are publicly available here and “final results table” for those who like to play with non-sense statistical data can be found here [PDF] (numbers are just numbers…).

All documents referenced here are publicly available documents of SC34’s web site. Fe[e]l free to analyze them and take your own conclusions.... If you don’t know me and would like to know how I know all this? I was in that room, member of the Brazilian Delegation.

So when we read that such and such a country voted yes, there may be a back story equally shocking as this one is. Would you like to know who was at the BRM? Here's the attendance list, which shines light on the matter also. Look for how often the affiliation is Microsoft. Then there are those that clearly support them without being directly employees, like Clever Age, et al. As you can see, Frédéric Bon, listed as representing Clever Age at the BRM, is also Chairman of the AFNOR Standards Committee [PDF], and Clever Age was retained or whatever they called it publicly to do "translator add-ins" for ODF interoperability for Microsoft Word, etc. Not that they work, from what I've heard. Connecting some dots? Why doesn't Microsoft do it itself? I think it's to preserve their litigation position regarding patents, myself. They can hardly write a translator and then sue you for using it. But if someone else does it, they can say they didn't realize, like SCO pretending not to know about the GPL. Anyway, my point is that Microsoft is approving its own "standard", I'd say. We count 20 direct Microsoft participants:

1 BELGIUM Mr. Bruno SCHRODER MICROSOFT
2 BRAZIL Mr. Fernando GEBARA Microsoft Brazil
3 CANADA Mr. Paul COTTON Microsoft Canada
4 COTE D'IVOIRE * Mr. Wemba OPOTA MICROSOFT West and central Africa
5 CZECH REPUBLIC Mr. Štepán BECHYNSKÝ Microsoft Czech Republic, Ltd
6 DENMARK Mr. Jasper Hedegaard BOJSEN Microsoft Denmark
7 FINLAND Mr. Kimmo BERGIUS Microsoft Ltd
8 GERMANY Mr. Mario WENDT Microsoft Deutschland GmbH
9 ISRAEL Mr. Shmuel YAIR Microsoft
10 ITALY Ing. Andrea VALBONI Microsoft Italy
11 JAPAN Mr. Naoki ISHIZAKA Microsoft
12 KENYA Mr. Emmanuel BIRECH Microsoft East Africa
13 NEW ZEALAND Mr. Brett ROBERTS Microsoft New Zealand
14 NORWAY Mr. Shahzad Rana Microsoft Norge AS
15 PORTUGAL * Prof. Miguel Sales DIAS MICROSOFT Portugal
16 SWITZERLAND Mr. Marc HOLITSCHER Microsoft Schweiz GmbH
17 UNITED STATES Mr. Doug MAHUGH Microsoft Corporation
18 Ecma International Mr. Brian JONES Microsoft
19 Ecma International * Mr. Jean PAOLI Microsoft Corporation
20 Assistant to Project Editor Mr. Tristan DAVIS Microsoft

Is that normal? I doubt it, but if it is, could someone do something about it? How can employees of a company go against the folks that pay them, even if they privately think the format is junk? Some might, but they'd surely not be employees after that. Now might you get why the Czech Republic waxed poetic about how wonderful the BRM was?

Update: I just got this email with news from S. Korea, and you'll note we are seeing a pattern of voting yes because *that* country's objections were resolved, as if they are obligated then to vote yes:

There is some sad news...

In final voting of ISO standards process of Office Open XML, Korea will vote "Yes", although it did "No with comments" in the last year. The Korean member body confirmed "The ECMA accepted to fix most of objection comments by a document in voting of last year." So they changed to their position from disapproval to approval.

The Google translation of the article about the S. Korean vote includes this funny bit: "The 'International Standardization ISO OOXML vote' voted to throw in a planned,"he explained."

And more sad news from Poland, that the strategy worked. The seven votes that never were sent by email counted as yes votes by the chairperson, and so Poland will stay with its Yes vote. The report ends:

This was a long fight and we lost it. Thanks for your support everyone. I would like to sincerely apologize for PKN, Mrs Elżbieta and all the folks who helped make this happen. I’m very sorry. Good bye.

Well, it's hard to win when the dealer uses a stacked deck. Let's see what the EU Commission does about it. You know what they say in the US, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Update 2: France will vote No, according to this journalist's sources:

"Nous avons répondu à toutes les demandes et nous avons montré des signes d'ouverture en février. Il serait étonnant que la France ayant obtenu toutes ses réponses ne transforme pas son «non» en «oui» », estime Marc Mossé, directeur des affaires juridiques et publiques pour Microsoft.

That's saying that a Microsoft spokesman says the company responded to all the issues and showed a willingness to be more open in February. So it would be astonishing that France having had all its issues answered would not change its vote from no to yes. This is a prediction, by the article and by Microsoft, so it's not firm yet.

I am hearing that South Africa has now voted No also.

Update 3: And a Chilean newspaper says Chile will abstain, which is what it did in September, despite a 'consulting committee' voting 60-40 for approval. If my Spanish is not failing me, it says that some pro-Microsoft maneuvers got the head of the NB so annoyed, it backfired:

Después de una primera votación, en septiembre de 2007, adversa para la mega-compañía, Microsoft ha desplegado una intensa campaña en busca de votos a nivel global que incluso escaló al nivel de las denuncias de irregularidades, una vez que se supo que funcionarios de la empresa en Suecia ofrecieron a sus socios comerciales “incentivos” y “contribuciones de marketing” a cambio de incorporarse al comité nórdico y votar a favor de la aprobación del OOXML. Suecia primero aprobó el formato y más tarde invalidó su voto debido al escándalo que llegó a los diarios.

El tema es de alta relevancia para Microsoft debido a que si no consigue los votos suficientes para la aprobación del estándar en Ginebra, el proceso abreviado o de fast track volverá a cero y podría tomar años para que el OOXML llegue a ser visado como estándar. Perder el fast track significa tiempo y dejar de ganar mucho dinero. Este es uno de los motivos para que la compañía se haya jugado el todo por el todo por lo que pase en Ginebra y haya buscado votos donde pueda, sea entre países prioritarios como Estados Unidos y Alemania (a favor) o India y Japón (en contra); o secundarios como Chile....

Según trascendió, en la decisión de Toro de mantener el voto de abstención del año pasado influyó su molestia por la supuesta decisión unilateral del presidente de la Cámara de Comercio Electrónico y secretario ejecutivo del comité consultivo del INN, Carlos Recabarren, quien apoyó el estándar de Microsoft en una segunda reunión realizada en Ginebra en febrero de 2007, sin consultar a sus representados, según se desprende de las actas de reuniones del organismo.

En el encuentro a fines de febrero en Suiza, Recabarren fue uno de los cinco votos de minoría que favorecieron un paquete de correcciones al OOXML, sin analizarlo a fondo. El tema generó ruido en ciertos integrantes de la comisión que consideraron que Recabarren actuó como juez y parte, dado que Microsoft integra la Cámara de Comercio Electrónico.

I'll attempt a rough translation, because it mentions a meeting in February in Geneva. What is this extra meeting?

After the first vote in September of 2007 against the mega company, Microsoft, it then rolled out an intense international campaign for votes that even reached the level of irregularities being reported, such as Microsoft employee in Sweden offering "incentives" to their commercial partners and promises of "marketing help" in exchange for joining the committee and voting in favor of the approval of OOXML. Sweden first approved the format and later invalidated its vote, after the scandal hit newspapers.

The matter is of high importance to Microsoft because if does not obtain sufficient votes for approval of the standard in Geneva, the fast track process is aborted, it goes back to zero and could take years before OOXML gets to be a standard. To lose on the fast track, then, means lost time and losing an opportunity to make a lot of money. This explains why Microsoft has thrown itself in whole hog to trying to win in Geneva, trying so hard for votes, not only from important countries like the United States and Germany (favoring Yes) but also India and Japan (against); and even secondary countries like Chile....

What apparently influenced Toro's decision to maintain last year's Abstain vote was his annoyance at what he viewed as a unilateral action by the president of la Cámara de Comercio Electrónico (the Chamber of Electronic Commerce) and executive secretary of the consultative committee of the INN, Carlos Recabarren, who supported the Microsoft format as a standard in a second meeting in Geneva in February of 2007, without consulting him.

At the meeting in February in Switzerland, Recabarren was one of the five votes by a minority that favored a package of corrections to the OOXML, without analyzing it thoroughly. That resulted in complaints by other members, who felt he'd acted like both judge and partisan, or party, so to speak, since Microsoft is a member of la Cámara de Comercio Electrónico (Chamber of Electronic Commerce).

You can no doubt do a better translation, but I thought it important to get the information out about the head of la Cámara de Comercio Electrónico's actions. The EU Commission is likely collecting stories like this one. The article is titled,"Microsoft sufre su peor derrota a nivel local" which means that Microsoft has suffered its worst defeat ever in Chile.

Update 5: Here is a much better translation, along with details I didn't notice. For example, Not only was Microsoft a member of CCE, the organization "until last January had Microsoft-Chile’s CTO as a member of its board of directors." You will also find there the official letter from Carlos Recabarren announcing Chile's decision to stay with its September Abstain vote, due to a lack of consensus. That is, after all, what the rules say to do if there is no consensus. Yoo hoo. Denmark. Did you read the Directives on that point?

I see an anonymous comment suggest that ISO now stands for:

I
Sold
Out

But isn't it good to see how many are refusing to do so? Consider the pressure, the threats, the stacking the deck, evidently some promises too, not to mention the confusing and ever changing rules, and it's remarkable. And yet all around the world, people have the courage and the integrity to say No.

Update 4: We reported on Denmark changing its vote to yes earlier, but a translation arrived of a snip of this report:

After the Ballot Resolution Group meeting, there has not been consensus in the committee, if all Danish comments had been entered into the final standard in a sufficient way. And there has been disagreement about the ripeness of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML as a fully fledged ISO/IEC standard.

In the final statement from the committee to 'Dansk Standard', the question of Denmark changing the original vote also didn't reach consensus....

On this background 'Dansk Standard' is changing Denmarks vote to 'Yes'

Um. No consensus. But they change the vote anyway? And here's an interesting viewpoint from Andy Updegrove:

Many journalists and others have asked me whether I have a prediction on what the outcome will be, and also what I think it will mean if OOXML is approved. I don’t have an answer to the first question, as there are too many countries involved, and too much may change until the last minute. But I do have an answer to the second question, and that answer is the same one that I have given every time that a new decision point has loomed in the ongoing quest for a useful format standard that can bring competition and innovation back to the desktop, as well as ensure that the history and creativity of today will remain accessible far into the future.

That answer is this: if anyone had asked me to predict in August of 2005 (the date of the initial Massachusetts decision that set the ODF ball rolling) how far ODF might go and what impact it might have, I would never have guessed that it would have gone so far, and had such impact, in so short a period of time. I think it’s safe to say that whatever happens with the OOXML vote is likely to have little true impact at all on the future success of ODF compliant products.

Here are ten reasons why I believe this prediction will be borne out.

The first is the obvious: "The quality of OOXML is not there yet." Personally, I'd leave off the 'yet' and call it done. I'd add two more to the list: first, as I've written about before, I believe the Microsoft OSP means FOSS developers can't rely on the OSP regarding OOXML, and so must avoid it, and that there are intellectual property issues for anyone so much as opening an OOXML+proprietary extension document. And two, in part a result of the first one: interoperability will never really happen. OOXML is what Microsoft offers instead of real interoperability.

Update 6: Glyn Moody has some wonderful news on ComputerWorld UK. I'll let him tell it:

John Pugh is a national treasure: an MP who actually understands technology. And he's proved it again with this very pertinent letter to the head of the BSI, which seems poised on the brink of doing something very silly. It's so good it's worth quoting in its entirety.

And so he does. Here's the letter to Mike Low, Director of British Standards:

Dear Mr Low,

I am deeply concerned that some national bodies have considered approving DIS29500 "in their national interest".

It is not in the interest of the UK or any other country for DIS 29500 to be published as an international standard in its present form as there are a significant number of unresolved issues, including incompatible licensing conditions, single vendor interest and control as well as those other factors uncovered since the original comment period closed. There is also the issue that is no current form of DIS 29500, as yet another exception to the process was made regarding the presentation of the proposed changes.

Issues raised by the BSI and others during the original 30 day objections phase have also never been properly addressed, not least of which is the unsuitability of such a large and complex specification of an unproven format to the fast track process.

Such a standard, if approved, would govern the manipulation of all future documents and lock users into a single supplier environment. The OOXML specification contains significant Intellectual Property Rights and other traps which will:

  • Stifle competition
  • Diminish innovation overall
  • Severely restrict consumer choice
  • Block Government choice
  • Limit the ability of UK SMEs to innovate and compete

I thought you would like to be aware that I have tabled a parliamentary PQ as follows:

"Can the Minister reassure me that the British Standards Institute that operates as our National Body under a memorandum of understanding from the Government will not change its stance on the currently unavailable text for the proposed standardisation of OOXML without proper consultation."

May I urge that the BSI uphold its admirable principles and does not approve DIS29500 in its present form.

Update 7: Now Norway says yes. Translation would be appreciated. We have a comment from Groklaw member kattemann, who says that it says this:

The meeting (of the NB) was supposed to last from 11:00 to 13:00 on Friday, but dragged on due to the massive resistance from several members of the committee.

"In the end there were three members from Standard Norge who made the decision,"

Three members. Connected to Microsoft, you think? A research project. He reports that there is another article with a quotation from Opera's CTO:

In a related article on computerworld Norway, Håkon Wium Lie is furious: "21 committee members against, and Standard Norge still does Microsoft's bidding?"

More scandal, I gather.

Update 8: We have a translation now, and also a translation of the press release from Standards Norway announcing their decision. It is, indeed, disturbing. First the translation of the article:

The meeting, which started at 11:00 am and was scheduled to run until 1:00 pm, dragged on, especially because of the massive opposition of several members of the committee. Because there was no consensus in the group, key players from Standards Norway and those who had attended the Geneva ISO conference enumerated the meeting. [enumerate is a direct translation...perhaps summarized would be better].

According to Chief Information Officer Marit Sæter of Standards Norway, these key people were committee chair Steve Pepper (independent consultant), Ivar Jackwitz and Bjørnhild Sæterøy (Standards Norway), Shahzad Rana (Microsoft), Knut Tungland (Statoilhydro) [Norweigian State oil and hydroelectric company] and Erlend Øverby (Hypatia).

Three Made Decision

At the end it was only three people from Standards Norway, led by Jackwitz, who made the decision.

"The committee could not come to an agreement. Standards Norway's decision has therefore been a difficult one, but we feel that it is important that the standard becomes available as an open international standard. When it becomes an ISO/IEC standard, it will be improved to better meet the needs of users, is the reasoning of Standards Norway.

Several of the committee's members believed that comments regarding concerns about OOXML made during the first round of ISO validation were ignored in the revision. This did not convince Standards Norway. Rana believes the disagreement was mainly quibbling. [could be translated as nitpicking]

"The debate revolved too much about syntax quibbling without focusing on the solution. The ECMA does not use the same words as the Norwegian comments [concerns] so some may have perceived this as wrong", states Rana.

Now, class, what do the JTC1/SC34 Directives say to do if there is no consensus? Just approve it anyway? This is amazing. And as for improving it later, that means they knew it isn't in good shape now, but they hope for better in the great by and by.

Here's the press release translation:

Standard Norge earlier voted "No, with comments" and gave suggestions for changes to the format. Comments were sent to ISO/IEC and treated in a so-called "ballot resolution" meeting February this year together with comments from numerous other countries. The purpose of today's meeting was to discuss to what degree the Norwegian comments have been attended to and if Norway should change its vote from its original No vote.

There was disagreement within the committee whether the Norwegian comments had been sufficiently taken care of. Standard Norge however thought it was important that if this becomes an ISO/IEC standard it will be improved to accomodate the users' needs in a better way....

Undoubtedly there has been strong conflicts of interest in the Norwegian committee. This, however, is a natural part of the standardization process and something that Standard Norge is not unused too.

Update 9: This Blog de Jose Miguel Parrella Romero is reporting that Venezuela has changed its vote to No.

And FOSSFA is urging African nations to vote Abstain:

The Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA) has called on African governments and standards bodies to abstain in the balloting, due to close Saturday, on whether a file format based on Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) should be an international standard.

The paper-ballot process is being undertaken under the auspices of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). FOSSFA is urging African countries to abstain, as part of a wider effort to participate more effectively in the global debate on open standards....

Recalling that the ISO meeting on OOXML in February in Geneva had little representation from Africa, and that some African countries have voted in the past to approve OOXML without thorough and more inclusive discussions on the issues, the organization is calling for more active public engagement of the issues in the future.

African countries including Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia and Zimbabwe have the right to participate in the ISO's OOXML balloting.


  


What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Amazing!!
Authored by: kinrite on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:42 AM EDT
I am lost for words.

---
"Truth is like energy...it can not be created, nor destroyed"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it really a standard?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:43 AM EDT
No.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OFF topic here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:45 AM EDT
And that doesn't mean topics that are OFF!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:47 AM EDT
All I can say is "wow"

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussion
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:47 AM EDT
At the rate these new topics are coming in we won't have much time to discuss
them, maybe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:03 AM EDT
Please post corrections to the story here.

---
Form follows function.

[ Reply to This | # ]

By the Book
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:05 AM EDT
The (oft-quoted) ISO rules for BRMs specifically state that if the BRM finds
that it cannot do the job in the meeting, it can report out that failure.

So my question is, did any of the NBs even attempt to bring this issue to the
floor? If any did, were they prevented from doing so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • By the Book - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:16 AM EDT
Representatives with Agendas
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:08 AM EDT
A quick look at the attendance list shows 17 attendees with
"Microsoft" affiliation. In fairness you should also state that there
were 13 from other organizations that have a commercial interest in the matter
(IBM, SUN, Oracle, etc.)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Surprised?
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM EDT
No, not really.

But it's nice to have substantial evidence of what we surmised was happening
behind the scenes. Except in this case, it isn't the attendees that influence
what occurs in these meetings; it's the bribed/coerced manipulators of the rules
and proceedings beforehand. Hence the Rule of Silence. And the best answer to
that is to -- as with all SCOduggery -- expose it in all its gory detail for the
whole world to see.

What amazes me is not what occurred in the meeting, but the lengths Microsoft
must have gone to to set this up.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

ISO defined ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 11:29 AM EDT
I
SOLD
OUT

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ISO defined ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT
  • ISO defined ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT
My only surprise is how bad it went for MS
Authored by: Winter on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Really, the stacking of NBs was evident almost a year ago. The way Ecma bend the
rules at every corner too.

What surprises me most is how bad this is all executed. MS earns $1B a MONTH
from their Office monopoly. With all that money, they were unable to convince
the NBs from the shadows. They now might be facing criminal prosecution.

I know that if you pay peanuts, you will get only monkeys. But if you pay big
money for sleazy deals, you seem to get only golddiggers.

Anyone knowing why this was executed so badly (beyond references to Vista,
please).

Winter

---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is the second account of this story
Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 11:46 AM EDT
Rob Weir has already told it to us here. he adds some interesting details.
There was a little commotion and several objections when it was announced that detailed minutes would not be recorded.

...

One NB, in lieu of a technical comment raised the objection that the DIS was too long and inappropriate for Fast Track. The response from ITTF was that we should do a "best effort" in the time available this week. If this is not sufficient, NB's should change vote to No, or maintain No vote. [PolR: My bold. This is interesting in the light of what Updegrove reports happened in Germany. Were the German delegates able to bring this suggestion to their NB? Or were they somehow overridden?]

...

As any real estate agent will tell you after a few drinks, the trick to selling a house is to make the buyer think they have made a wise decision. To do that, first show them a few overpriced, dilapidated houses, and then show them the house you want them to buy. A similar approach was used on the BRM.

The four options presented were:

  • Option 1: Submitter's responses (Ecma's) are all automatically approved.
  • Option 2: Anything not discussed is not approved.
  • Option 3: Neutral third-party (ITTF) decides which Ecma responses are accepted
  • Option 4: Voting (approve + disapprove) must be at least 9 votes. Abstentions not counted.

We were told that these options are not in the Directives and that we have been given these choices because ITTF "needs to act in the best interests of the IEC". I don't quite get it, but there appears to be some concern over what the press would think if the BRM did not handle all of the comments. One NB requested to speak and asked, "I wonder what the press would think about arbitrarily changed procedures?" No response. [Polr: My bold.]

...

However, 80%+ of the resolutions of the BRM were resolved by a ballot, without discussion, without taking into account any dissenting views, without reconciling any arguments. Indeed, there was not any opportunity to even raise an objection to an issue decided by the ballot.

...

Into Friday the BRM spirals further downwards. The issue is not now that NB's cannot raise new issues. The problem is now that NB's who have been diligently working on issues off-line with other delegations, meeting over lunch, or early in the morning or into the evening, may not be able to have their proposals heard and acted on.

...

The net is that, although the discussions on Monday and Tuesday demonstrated that the quality of the Ecma responses was such that almost every one required substantial off-line work to make it acceptable, we gradually lowered our standards, so that by week's end, we approved 800+ comments without any discussion, even in the presence of clear objections.

...

As the meeting concluded, ITTF requested that we not call the vote a "default" vote. "These were your choices, voted according to the rules you adopted," we were told. I reject this revisionist portrayal of the events. This was not my choice. This was merely the least bad of several bad choices that the ITTF deigned to allow us at the end of a grueling week trying to resolve 3,522 issues in bloated, technically immature proposal that has been mismanaged from the start.

The two reports are perfectly convergent. I believe them. I also believe the purpose of the "rule of silence" is to make sure the world doesn't know about all this. I also think the silence served to make sure the NBs hear sanitized accounts of the BRM events to the maximum extent of possible. This makes sure the opposition is divided and cannot plan concerted actions or effectively bring arguments during meetings. The fact that the recourse of voting no doesn't seem to have reached Germany could be an example.

Rob also mentioned the heavy stacking in a separate post here. He translated his analysis in very telling percentages.

One in five BRM attendees were Microsoft employees. Over 25% of the 114 people in attendance were either Microsoft or Ecma TC45 members.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Every country have their... "little secret".
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 11:46 AM EDT
Every country have their own way of doing and their "little secret".
The secret: "How to change things so that result is one that pleases
Microsoft."

Almost every country did this.

From:
stuffing committees (Portugal and others)
blackmail
bribery (Sweden)
not discussing the standard at all (automatic YES vote)
being defendant judge and jury (Portugal)
counting as YES votes from people that didn't vote (Poland)
suing (India)

There're certainly more...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Denmark has changed its vote 'Yes'
Authored by: Burger on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Business as usual for Microsoft
Authored by: seraph_jeffery on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 12:41 PM EDT
Microsoft has been so used to bully to get their way for so long that they've
all touch with ethics. It's strange to speak of a non-living corporation in
this way, but the entity reflects the leadership. Oh, and their cadre of
attorneys. Do I have the right king of England - Henry II - who said (according
to Shakespeare), "First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." (?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

No guts to say no
Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 12:48 PM EDT
The only surprise for me is how few have the guts to stick by their principles. DIS 29500 is obviously defective on technical grounds. The individuals involved in the National Bodies are supposed to be there because of their ability to deal with technical issues. Instead, many have forsaken their responsibilities and thereby betrayed their constituents, most of whom have no idea that this controversy even exists and rely upon those with expertise to do their jobs.

Are avarice and cowardice really global standards, now?

---
-- grouch

"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 12:51 PM EDT
If they want it to be fair they should THROW OUT out all responses from ANYONE
who has not been a member for 5 years, then DISQUALIFY those who have been shown
to have been influenced either way!

Then sue M$ billions for having the gall to pervert the system!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Second meeting seems to be the BRM
Authored by: spectro on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 01:12 PM EDT
It seems in the chilean article they meant February 2008 (the BRM meeting).
There is already a comment about that and they may correct it soon.

As an ex student of Universidad Federico Santa María I am appalled to read such
a prestigious institution has fallen so low as to sell out to a flawed
standard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it a standard?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM EDT
I think the question "is it a standard?" illuminates much about what's
going on here.

First, ISO is getting much criticized for having a process that is so easily
gamed. But we need to remember that settling on a standard is inherently
consensus based, because normally a motivation of the organizations that want
the standard to exist is to have the standard used as widely as possible. The
problem in the present case is a powerful company that sees competitive
advantage in having a standard in name only.

Second, we all know that the reason Microsoft is pursuing this is because many
govts were getting wise and requiring that the software they purchase to support
standard file formats. And this threatens Microsoft's vendor lock-in. They
think they can put a stop to that by having a standard in name only that only
they support.

Finally, this leads us to why Microsoft's plan will fail, though the path to get
there will be painful. Most of the govts Microsoft is interested in can be
forced into a certain amount of transparency. When they pick Office because it
supports OOXML, the public can demand that their govt get independent
verification that Office does indeed support the published standard, and then
have a look at the verification, it will be found wanting, because the published
standard is famous for leaving important points unspecified. Besides that, the
lack of adoption of this standard will eventually make clear to everyone that
allowing OOXML as an open standard amounts to mandating a single vendor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have much to say about all of this and it boils down to one word - Corruption -
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 01:44 PM EDT
Microsoft is more willing to invest its' money in political bodies than in the development of a product so good that no one would consider using anything else. In a way this indicates a lack of product confidence on the part of Microsoft's executives. History has shown us the ethical standards of the corporation. The link is for those not already aware of the earlier antics that establishes a pattern of behavior (or those wanting to stroll down memory lane). Why I hate Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 02:29 PM EDT
Can you please tally the number of IBM employees and FSF related representatives
at the BRM and let us know :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just accept it...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 02:41 PM EDT
I think we should just accept that OOXML will be an International Standard, like ODF. Then every government should require two things from any Office application that is used by a government: 1. Exact conformance to either one of these two standards. 2. Correct handling of leap years.

These two very sensible requirements would unfortunately exclude the use of any current Microsoft software, and the use of any software that only conforms to OOXML, since incorrect handling of leap years is part of the proposed OOXML standard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about IOS?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 03:01 PM EDT
The International Organization for Standardization stood for usable standards.
Has a long tradition. Is there anyone from above looking into this process?
Has this happened before? And how did that end?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Norway says Yes.
Authored by: theopensourcerer on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 03:19 PM EDT
Apparently: http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article92563.ece although my
Norwegian isn't up to much...

Al

I think M$ are going to get this through - but only just and with such a scandal
surrounding the process no-one will believe it is really a standard.

ISO is dead in the water if this happens.

Al

---
The Way Out Is Open

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 03:28 PM EDT
I
Sold
Out

The only truth to come out of this whole sorry affair. Astonishing that ISO
allowed itself to be corrupted by Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: lukep on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 03:46 PM EDT
by my count, if BSI has sold too, the cheaters have won

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS to save in ODF by default
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 04:07 PM EDT
And now we're waiting for the EU commission to rule:
In addition to another billion dollars fine for illegal business methods
(bribing, coercing, bullying etc), all MS products sold in EU will have to save
in ODF formats by default.

Yes! That will take care of competition.
Happy Ubuntu User

[ Reply to This | # ]

Updegrove is dreaming
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 04:09 PM EDT

how far ODF might go and what impact it might have, I would never have guessed that it would have gone so far, and had such impact, in so short a period of time. I think it’s safe to say that whatever happens with the OOXML vote is likely to have little true impact at all on the future success of ODF compliant products.

Get real. ODF has had practically no impact, as yet. Apply for a job, a lot of agencies will tell you to send your resume in "word format". One recently sent me a form to fill out.... natch, a .doc file. Has any company, ever, sent you a file in ODF format? Me neither.

ODF's only chance is that MSOOXML not get approved on fast-track. Then it has time to build some kind of market presence, maybe 1% or 2%, before MSOOXML gets straightened out (as far as such a pile of junk can be straightened out).

Microsoft knows this. That's why it is pulling out all the stops to win this one. When Microsoft has committed itself 100% to a battle of this importance, it has never yet lost. I think we had a chance on this one, and maybe we still do, it's hard to call. But I think we could have fought harder than we did.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Compliance - What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 04:18 PM EDT
Perhaps this has been painfully obvious to everyone else, but I just realised
something.

I know Microsoft has said something to the effect that they may not follow the
standard exactly with MS Word. And I know that there has been comments that
anyone who implements the standard may not have something that will interoperate
with Microsoft Office.

However the point is that some of the proposed resolutions will impose design
changes to anything that is built to this standard.

The link between what Microsoft generated as a "standard", and which
supposedly is a document of what MS Word does, and the new OOXML has been
broken. If the standard is passed, as ammended, nothing can be built with the
standard that will interoperate with any current version of MS Office. It will
take a re-write, millions of lines of code, to make office work, or since MS is
taking charge of the standard once it is approved, re-writing the standard back
to what it was before the standards committees voted on it.

An awful lot of work any way you cut it, that adds nothing to Microsofts bottom
line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Venezuela disapprove
Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 04:28 PM EDT
Link

This is a wonderful news. Venezuela is a P-country that had formerly approved OOXML in the September ballot. Transfers of votes are not all in the same direction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why is everybody complaining ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT
My understanding is that ISO stands for International
Swindler Organization. So why is everybody complaining if
there has been some fraud in that organization ?

Disclaimer : People in the other ISO organization which
have been working within that organization on technical
issues without having been bothered by politics should not
be offended. ISO has done some outstanding work in the
past. I know because I using a lot of their standards in
electronic engineering.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So the real purpose of OOXMLis to allow MS to continue
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 05:14 PM EDT
lying: Office does/will not comply;
ignoring international standards: by their non compliance;
deception: the "choice" of two standards permits them to
ignore ODF hoping it will wither on the vine.

The US government cannot stop them. I fear they would
wriggle away from proof in a law court that somebody
has died as a direct result of the action of MS software.
</pessimism>

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: rvergara on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 05:16 PM EDT
I was actually surprised that Venezuela was approving OOXML since it is against the decree 3390 which specifically mandates the use of Open Standards in all government offices. It is excellent news that they have seen the light. Ramiro

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Really Happening
Authored by: stomfi on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 06:03 PM EDT
Microsoft is subverting the whole ISO process for its own benefit.

The end result will be that no existing or future software standards will be
seen as anything but proprietary standards by the CEOs of the world, paving the
way for MS and its third party supporters to try to take over the industry once
again through their monopolistic anti-interoperability strategies.

Take that FLOSS and B....r the free world as well. Big Brother Balmer is looking
after your best interests.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can ISO revoke/retire a standard?
Authored by: tce on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 06:26 PM EDT
Does anyone know if ISO has a method to revoke or retire a "standard"
that is no longer serving "its" purpose?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A few of the irregularities in the OOXML fast track process
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 07:40 PM EDT
Ripped from an anonymous poster on slashdot. Good overview:


0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&ti
tle=Finland+Changes+Vote+to
+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&ty
pe=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to
"If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to
sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-pro
paganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the
Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any
information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lac
k-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself
violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that
98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his
question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can.
The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-busines
s-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted
17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-state
s:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong
pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to
8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote
will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke
Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of
OOXML being made a standard when ODF exists already, and she believes
duplicative standards conflict with WTO rules
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327170359776

12) Denmark vote Yes ... but in the vote there was be about 50% Yes and 50% No
http://www.ds.dk/4225 [www.ds.dk]
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327231223154&ti
tle=Rough%20summary%20of%20
the%20Dansih%20announcement&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&
pid=0#c683351

[ Reply to This | # ]

A comment on readability
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 08:02 PM EDT

I would like to remind PJ, and other writers, that reader's unfamiliar with this stuff sometimes come across these articles. When that happens, it is extremely frustrating that terms like BRM are used without any explanation. It would be extremely helpful if, in any article like this, the writer spells out what BRM stands for on it's first use in an article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

completely short-sighted
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 08:04 PM EDT
I am puzzled. Pushing OOXML to standard this way doesn't help anybody. The
standard bodies gamble away their reputation, the customers will have their old
documents retroactively "standardized", so there would be no need to
provide tools to make these data accessible. Even Microsoft will not implement
this thing in their main applications. And I am not sure, if this game will
help Microsoft in legal matters...


cb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now Everyone Knows Beyond Any Shadow Of A Doubt...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 09:26 PM EDT
Now, there are at least two things Microsoft does very
poorly. Abet, arithmetic ala Excel and standards ala
usable standards.

As for a third thing Microsoft does very poorly, may I
venture software? Vista? IE? ActiveX? .NET?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Norwegian Translation
Authored by: leeway00 on Friday, March 28 2008 @ 10:25 PM EDT
Here's my translation. I live in the U.S. and learned my Norwegian here but am
fluent in spoken Norwegian, including Bergen street dialect but I never actually
have had any training or use for writing in Norwegian. So take this translation
with a grain of salt....but it should be 95 - 98% accurate.

[code]Microsoft Wins - Norway recommends OOXML

Revision of OpenXML has yielded results. Standards Norway decided today to
recommend the format as an ISO standard.

Microsoft managed to convince the Standards Norway committee that OOXML is
worthy of an ISO standard. Long discussions Friday ended with Standards Norway
recommending OOXML should be recognized as an open standard.

"I am very happy about this! Standards Norway has shown unusual
completeness in the process. ISO has done a great job which many in Norway will
find useful in the future" says a very happy and tired Shahzad Rana to
Computerworld.

The meeting, which start at 11:00 am and was scheduled to run until 1:00 pm,
dragged on, especially because of the massive opposition of several members of
the committee. Because there was no consensus in the group, key players from
Standards Norway and those who had attended the Geneva ISO conference enumerated
the meeting. [enumerate is a direct translation...perhaps summarized would be
better].

According to Chief Information Officer Marit Sæter of Standards Norway, these
key people were committee chair Steve Pepper (independent consultant), Ivar
Jackwitz and Bjørnhild Sæterøy (Standards Norway), Shahzad Rana (Microsoft),
Knut Tungland (Statoilhydro) [Norweigian State oil and hydroelectric company]
and Erlend Øverby (Hypatia).

Three Made Decision

At the end it was only three people from Standards Norway, led by Jackwitz, who
made the decision.

"The committee could not come to an agreement. Standards Norway's decision
has therefore been a difficult one, but we feel that it is important that the
standard [OOXML] becomes available as an open international standard. When it
becomes an ISO/IEC standard, it will improved to better meet the needs of users,
is the reasoning of Standards Norway.

Several of the committee's members believed that comments regarding concerns
about OOXML made during the first round of ISO validation were ignored in the
revision. This did not convince Standards Norway. Rana believes the
disagreement was mainly quibbling. [could be translated as nit picking]

"The debate revolved too much about syntax quibbling without focusing on
the solution. The ECMA does not use the same words as the Norwegian comments
[concerns] so some may have perceived this as wrong", states Rana.

ISO decided last September to not recognize OOXML as an open standard but with a
view to changes. These changes were done by ECMA and Standards Norway has
validated this as acceptable or not related to the comments made.

Denmark has made an about face and approved OOXML. So has Finland.

All the member countries in ISO have until Saturday to vote. Then ISO will
decide whether OOXML becomes an open standard or not.[/code]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: webster on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 01:12 AM EDT

No matter what the conclusion on ISO29500 the process raises a question of governance and power. The balance of interests is decidedly skewed. It appears that this system can be abused.

  1. This was a do or die effort for the Monopoly to preserve itself. They are paying an unwanted price for permitting ODF to happen. As it is they are going to have to succeed in another round of lock-in of the masses to continue existence as the verified monopoly. To do that they have to destroy ODF.
  2. Clearly ODF is their target --dilute it, if not destroy it. That's why they call their stuff "Office" and "Open" directly targeting and confusing ODF's main implementer, OpenOffice.org. They could not abide by their being only one standard that was not theirs. Growing adoption of it would sweep away the advantage of their "de facto" standard. As someone noted in a comment today why pay $700 for an office suite when you can open the same documents with a free suite.
  3. One supposes that the Monopoly would have thought this process of standardizing their exclusive format would have gone more smoothly, but they are getting bad PR because their victims are keeping vocal and they know how to get the word out. One wonders if anyone can stand up to them. When will the EU cave in? Imagine the fortunes at stake to the players in this ISO29500 battle. People have surrendered to fear, wealth and power to skew the process and adopt an irrational standard. It benefits no one but the Monopoly and their subservient cohorts.
  4. Even for winning this vote, the Monopoly will have to contend with ODF. With their own standard they can now use the same power, their "evangelical jihad" to now get these shills to keep buying their product.
  5. The Monopoly only cares and needs to win. They can pay any price since their victory insures billions. Continental governments can't even stand up to them. They win again. They continue their entrenchment. They make more enemies. Someday it might matter. What about the next go-round, after Blista? Can they continue the lock-in, lock-out, upgrade treadmill? Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. Totalitarian vigilance is a chore, like checking in Olympic jock straps for Tibetan flags. ISO is forewarned. Are they to remain overwhelmed by shills? Can they railroad their next standard? Will they need to?
  6. This is becoming a freedom and humanitarian issue. But it is a battle that can easily be lost and recast as control and wealth over freedom. This is a battle society has long lost to the militarists. The interests of nations prevail over that of humanity.
It's late and the suspense is....


---------webster

Tyrants live their delusions. Beware the PIPE Fairy.


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Relax man! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:31 AM EDT
What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:24 AM EDT
I'm the anonymous slashdot poster ... there are no copyright

[ Reply to This | # ]

No more speeding tickets...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 04:30 AM EDT
If ISO accepts this as the proper way of defining 'standards', then I think you
will have a great time in court battling speeding tickets. ISO standards have
lost their meaning and value due to this farce.

As such, I reserve the right to change my definition of the meter. I will change
the speedometer of my car to match my definition and will fight any speeding
ticket I get. I was doing exactly 50 km/h, not 70..

Far fetched? Maybe. But if this is the way we allow standards to be set, then we
set ourselves up for massive failure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bill G. bullying French Standard Committee
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 07:49 AM EDT
According to this report here on Heise in German language, Bill Gates personally demands and insists on a reconsideration and re-assembly of the French Standards Committee today and a new vote: Heise report on Bill Gates forcing France to the "right" vote

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was an updated specification ever released?
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 10:41 AM EDT
I am wondering. I have not seen anywhere any mention that a revised version of
DIS 29500 to include the changes voted at the BRM was ever released. Am I
missing something? Or are the NBs currently voting on a text they have never
seen because not yet written?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, it is now the 29th of March...
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 01:38 PM EDT
...and this mess should be settled by the end of the day.

A few comments and questions.

= I know it has been raised before, but exactly (i.e. at what hour) will this
end? What about time-zones and all that falderal?

= What are the current positions of the various National Boards? The tallies
posted here seem to indicate that it has failed to get quite enough 'P' votes,
but where is this being tracked most closely? (clicky please.)

= With the tally so close, various forms of hanky-panky, misrepresentation and
plain old errors could be critical. We may not know what the actual results are
for several days.

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 01:47 PM EDT
For those that can read german:

http://www.verivox.de/News/ArticleDetails.asp?aid=78038&pm=1

Short form here:

The Lenkungsausschuss had to decide. They looked at the BRM report and
voted. The two options possible were

- Germany sends ABSTAIN
- Germany sends APPROVE

(DISAPPROVE was not an option for a good reason.)

The result was 6:6 and that would mean no consensus --> Send ABSTAIN.

Now the surprising thing happened.

The DIN person decided to break the normal rules and cast a vote on
behalf of DIN. This is VERY unusual. As they say themselves, DIN is just
steering the process and not a party in th eprocess.

But as this vote was not about *technicla* issues nor the content of
DIS29500 but a vote on accepting the result of the technical committe,
they felt it was fine for them to cast a vote of their own.

So the final outcome was 7:6 --> Germany sends APPROVE

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 01:48 PM EDT
Serious stuffing happened in Switzerland last year.

At the face to face meeting last year there was a clear majority (9:4)
for DISAPPROVE. The Convenor, Mr. Thomann, decided to have an e-mail
vote and - surprise,surprise - suddenly a lot of Microsoft Partners
joined and so they had a 75.02% majority for APPROVE.

After the BRM one member filed a change request that got rejected based
on:

- You can only change if there is a detoriation of the standard draft.
And as BRM was the biggest possible success, there is no detoriation.

- APPROVE is unconditional as opposed to DISAPPROVE which is
conditional.

So the request was rejected.

Now according to the rules of SNV there is no formal process to handle a
request. It all is in the hands of the convenor. There is no formal way
to object his decision.

Rumour has it that there was pressure from SNV to make sure there is not
even a discussion about a change.

Should I mention that Mr. Van de Belt is member of the technical
committe in Switzerland?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 01:50 PM EDT
Croatia's initial position regarding fast-tracking OOXML was "Yes, with no
comments". After the BRM resolution, NB's were given time to reconsider
their vote in the light of new circumstances (namely, changes to original
proposition).

The second round of voting was initiated by some Croatian NB members asking for
the second round, mainly because there are many changes between initial
proposition and the post-BRM changes.

However, that was strongly disputed by Microsoft Croatia, who argued that
there's no need for a second round, because it is not a mandatory process, and
refused to vote in it, accusing commitee conveners of incompetence.


The second round of voting was held out despite the protest from Microsoft, and
here are the results:


Out of 35 members of TO Z1, 17 sent a vote, and there were three votes for, and
fourteen against fast-tracking OOXML, which is relative rejection rate of 82%.

Members who voted were individual experts, IBM, CLUG and HrOpen.

However, since there were less than 51% of votes, the voting process was
declared invalid, and the previous vote holds.

The second round of voting was just one vote from being valid.


Author's opinion is that public (within the commitee) and loud rejection of
second voting round by Microsoft has influenced other members to do the same, so
instead of the usual vote of abstain, many of them avoided voting altogether,
which enabled Microsoft to force CSI to keep the original vote by rendering the
second voting process invalid.

So, Microsoft has won the game by tricking other members into thinking that the
second round is invalid, not regular and called upon by incompetent people,
resulting in invalidating regular voting process - enough to keep things the way
they were.


(http://www.oddparity.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&
amp;pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:07 PM EDT
In November last year, PKN voted “yes, with comments” for Microsoft’s OOXML. On
March 20, 2008, Technical Committee (KT 182) of PKN was supposed to either
accept the recommendation (which was to vote YES for the proposed standard) or
not accept it, and thus recommend PKN to vote NO or abstain from voting. Of 45
members, 24 appeared on the meeting. And the votes looked like this:

* 12 votes supporting the reccomendation,
* 10 votes rejecting it,
* 2 abstaining to vote.

No consensus has been achieved concerning the recommendation. Thus, the chairman
of KT 182, El&#380;bieta Andrukiewicz, decided to allow the missing members
to vote by e-mail during the next 10 days (till the end of March). After
receiving all the votes, the final decision will be made (although it’s not
exactly clear who is going to make the decision and on what basis).

One is clear though — there is a huge opposition to OOXML as a standard in KT
182, which is contrary to last year’s decision of the same committee

(http://polishlinux.org/poland/no-consensus-over-ooxml-in-poland-yet/)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:09 PM EDT
Greece:

The committee was today, and there was nothing unexpected, it was very well
stuffed, nice work by MS....

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT
Anyone knows if this corrupted countries , payed by Microsoft to upgrade to ISO
JTC P-members a couple of days before September/2007 ballot closing kept their
Absolutely-positive-unconditional-yes-without-ever-reading-the-whole-beast-or-kn
ow-what-XML-is-all-about" vote?

Jamaica island
Cyprus island
Malta island
Kazakhstan
Lebanon
Azerbaijan
Cote-d'Ivore [1]

??


[1]
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-43510/ivory-coast-represented-by-microsoft-senega
l-at-the-brm

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 29 2008 @ 03:24 PM EDT
The committee S-142/U-34 under Danish Standards could not agree to change their
vote from No to Yes...

A couple of hours later:

http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6718 says that the announcement from Danish
Standards will not be made until Friday and that the Chair of the committee has
been barred from speaking about the result of yesterday's meeting.

May be after some Microsoft political intervention to revert this ( the Prime
Minister of Denmark is a Microsoft friend ), you have this:

http://www.en.ds.dk/4227

Wow, the text of DIS 29500 *doesn't exist* ( right now Microsoft is rushing to
gave ISO a new text: adding parts, changing conformance, fixing XML,
adding/deleting schemas, etc ) to try to get something presentable ), the
technical committee is telling you that they didn't agree to change the
disapproval vote.

How can DS approve it ?????

----> $$$$$$$$ !!!!!



[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 31 2008 @ 11:28 PM EDT
My favorite part:

""The debate revolved too much about syntax quibbling without focusing
on the solution. The ECMA does not use the same words as the Norwegian comments
[concerns] so some may have perceived this as wrong", states Rana."

yeah who cares about the details - it is only a standard and it will all be good
- microsoft said so.

I think we have entered MARS (Microsoft Alternate Reality Syndrome).

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Really Happened at the BRM for OOXML & Who Attended - Updates on Results
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 03 2008 @ 01:38 AM EDT
And Alex Brown, the convenor, now consults British Library aka Microsoft's digitization project

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )