Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:50:07 -0000

Well, I didn't have to stick around for long:

SABS, the National Body member of ISO/IEC JTC1 for South Africa, has filed a formal appeal with both ISO and IEC, challenging the Fast Track adoption of OOXML. With the filing of this formal appeal, DIS 29500 is now formally in limbo (i.e., cannot become an approved standard) until the appeal has been addressed.

The cited basis for South Africa's appeal is found in the following text of Clause 11.1.2 of the applicable Directives:

A P Member of JTC1 or an SC may appeal against any action or inaction, on the part of JTC 1 or an SC when the P member considers that in such action or inaction:

- questions of principle are involved;
- the contents of a draft may be detrimental to the reputation of IEC or ISO; or
- the point giving rise to objection was not known to JTC 1 or SC during earlier discussions.

...

The letter then gives detailed arguments supporting its appeal under each of the subclauses (discussed below in greater detail), and gives the following summary in closing:

In conclusion, South Africa challenges the validity of a final vote that we contend was based upon inadequate information resulting from a poorly conducted BRM. Moreover, we challenge the validity of a process that, from beginning to end, required all parties involved to analyze far too much information in far too little time, involved a BRM that did not remotely provide enough time to perform the appointed purpose of that procedure, and for which an arbitrary time limitation was imposed to discuss and resolve a significant number of substantial responses, despite the
Directives not requiring any such limitation as to duration.

It is our opinion that the process followed during all stages of the fast track has harmed the reputations of both ISO and IEC and brought the processes enshrined in the Directives into disrepute, and that this negative publicity has, in turn, also harmed the reputations of all member bodies of ISO and the IEC.

The closing of the letter is both telling as well as ironic, coming just after Microsoft's announcement that it would support ODF in Office 2007, but not DIS 29500, the ISO/IEC JTC 1 version of OOXML, until the as yet unscheduled shipping of Office 14. As a result, the business basis for fast tracking OOXML to begin with - to benefit the enormous installed base of Office users - will be rewarded, at the earliest, in 2010.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/art...

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:07:27 -0000

On the other side, there’s Microsoft, who being late to the game, attempted to play catch-up (in the same way that ODF was approved, through the fast-track process) so that it too would have an ISO approved standard that would be acceptable to governments. So it’s easy to see why Microsoft really wants to see OOXML be approved ASAP.

I don't disagree with MS getting together a QUALITY standard and having it approved.

What I am opposed to, and Steve Pepper and the numerous others who voted against the standards, is the low quality of the standard, from a technical perspective, and secondly the resultant shennanigans that MS consultants engaged in to get that poor standard approved.

In nearly every country that voted for OOXML MS or their consultants have been shown to be engaged in unsavory or possibly illegal practices. My ending remark is from a great article from 2600: Stick around.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

bradencox — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:53:57 -0000

Enigma, why is there such a controversy (in the examples you list above)? Well, on one side you have IBM and Sun, who have enjoyed first-mover advantage with ODF, and have attempted to exploit legitimate concerns for interoperability and to gain a competitive advantage by convincing governments to set procurement preferences for ODF. When Adobe and others complained, they generalized the preference to refer to ISO approved standards.

On the other side, there's Microsoft, who being late to the game, attempted to play catch-up (in the same way that ODF was approved, through the fast-track process) so that it too would have an ISO approved standard that would be acceptable to governments. So it's easy to see why Microsoft really wants to see OOXML be approved ASAP.

And it's also easy to see why IBM/Sun don't want to see OOXML compete against ODF. And they've been undeniably good at organizing grass roots support for their cause in order to create an ideological battle that is much more than just anti-OOXML, but touches upon free and open source software, interoperability...things that also help IBM's business objectives. It's amazing to see the passion involved here. I respect it, even though I see it as misguided when it comes to calls for government getting involved with mandates, preferences, and invasive business regulation (indeed, this is my primary concern).

So again, why the controversy? Governments have involved themselves in specifying the use of document formats that are approved standards. This has raised the profile and importance of the ISO standards process, raising the importance of a certain outcome to companies (and individuals) with various stakes in the game. Because strong opposing forces will lobby for opposite outcomes, the probability increases that dissension and controversy will occur. Given this, it's no surprise we've seen this with the OOXML process. And I'm willing to bet that bad patterns of behavior can be found on all sides, and if sources of controversy end being a cause for action as a violation of ISO's rules (or as you mentioned, maybe legally) then they should be dealt with accordingly.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:27:57 -0000

Rather than list irregularities here, here's a site that is compiling them:

http://www.noooxml.org/irregularities

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:02:44 -0000

Well, I responded to your comments regarding my conjecture, but we will see, when all the subpoenas have been served and the evidence delivered, whether any laws were broken. From Microsoft's past behavior, particularly in their case in the EU and in the several internal documents that have been leaked on-line that they do have a very underhanded way of running their business to say the least. Of course, I don't have any evidence of law breaking.

I will note that you have not responded to my point above which provided a link to the Standards Council of Canada which has released a statement opposing OOXML approval as a standard, as have numerous other national standard-setting bodies. It's rather unusual for any standard to engender this much controversy, isn't it? Why do you think there has been so much controversy?

There have been allegations of irregularities in the voting process in Germany, Poland, Philippines, Croatia, Norway, France. Has there ever been this much disagreement and controversy over a technical standard? Why do you think there is such a controversy?

There have also been numerous irregularities by the ISO, including not allowing any records to be made of meetings, and not providing records where required. Here's the ISO's own rule:

In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance.

The BRM meeting was held Feb 25 -29, and today is April 11, so Where's the meeting report?

I am curious why you believe there is so much controversy surrounding this standard.

But, leaving aside the quality issues of the standard itself which have been widely remarked upon (refer to the comment by the reader Carme above) I will give you two patterns of behavior of Microsoft which convince me that Microsoft has brought this controversy upon themselves.

First, when Microsoft does not get its way they complain to governments or slur the reputation of those who oppose them, without any regard for standards of behavior, decency or propriety:

At the meeting held on 20th March 2008, we were informed that Microsoft has complained to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and to the apex office of the country about the constitution of the committee and also cast aspersions on the impartiality of the chairperson of LITD15, Mrs. Neeta Verma. The chairperson was furious and offered to step down from her post. She pointed out that the committee has met numerous times and Microsoft never brought this issue up in front of the committee nor did they check the facts with her or her organization before complaining to the apex office.

Mrs. Verma was persuaded to stay back only after all the other members requested her to stay. After that, Dr. Arora of CSI displayed great statesmanship by asking the Microsoft representative if Microsoft would like to withdraw its complaint. Sadly, the Microsoft representative said that it cannot be withdrawn because it was sent by his senior or some similar reason. The Wipro representative then chimed in and tried to stall the vote by saying that he did not believe that the committee has not been able to apply its mind to the subject and should therefore abstain from voting on this issue! For those of us who have been engaged in this issue from the very beginning (as compared to the software exporters who put in cameo, guest appearances and contributed very little to discussing technical issues) this was obviously not acceptable.

And in case you think that was a fluke, from New Zealand a similar story:

The New Zealand Open Source Society is reporting that an employee at Microsoft recently sent an email to one of the technical bodies advising an NB involved in the OOXML ISO process, smearing a man's reputation, Matthew Holloway, apparently to undermine his technical input which was critical of OOXML. Standards New Zealand was took the claims so seriously that they responded to parties who received this email. The New Zealand Open Source Society has all the gruesome details, and the reason I'm highlighting it here, aside from wanting to help undo a wrong, is because NZOSS request that if the slur, or others like it, has spread to other NBs or advisory bodies that you please direct them to the defense of Mr. Holloway's good name and reputation by Standards New Zealand on that page. Here's the request:

We have discovered that Matthew Holloway was badly slurred by a Microsoft employee in an email to one of the bodies advising an overseas standards NB. It is worth noting that our own national body, Standards New Zealand (SNZ), took the claims so seriously that they responded to parties who received this email.

We discovered the slur by chance; similar information may be circulating in other countries. If you are aware of this please point concerned parties to this article. SNZ have given us permission to quote this email. I have removed names to protect the guilty parties.

Secondly, look at the following Microsoft document, part of the discovery in the Comes v. Microsoft case:

Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

In short, Braden, you have a lot of work to do. Job security is a good thing, especially in today's economy, congratulations!

Oh, and I find your reference to my blog post as an 'ad hominem' attack odd. Why do you say that?

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

bradencox — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:31:48 -0000

I'll choose not to engage in the self-admitted conjecture, but would like to address the more substantive reference to Steve Pepper's vocal opposition to Norway's vote. You've posted the entire text of the speech above, along with his letters. These (and clips from Groklaw) are what you refer to as your "points and facts."
Here's an official statement from Norway's standards body (Standard Norge) responding to the kinds of allegations leveled by Pepper.
I think it's a rather evenhanded recount of their decision-making process that isn't overtly pro- or anti-OOXML. Others may see it as a defensive measure from an organization that has an incentive to maintain support for its decision. However, some may also question Pepper's motives and his over-the-top populist rhetoric.
But if we get too much into motive questioning, we quickly delve into conjecture and ad hominem attacks (I take pride in avoiding personal attacks when making policy arguments). So I'll leave to TLF's readers to determine what to believe and what to discount.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:46:20 -0000

Braden:

First, I'll note that you have not responded to any of the points and facts I have presented above, only my conjecture that "many laws were probably broken by Microsoft to get OOXML approved." I assume that's because you have no arguments to present, and would therefore like to shift the argument way from facts to the exploration of a conjecture I've made as a sidebar.

Very well. My conjecture is at least as well-grounded as your initial post, so I'll explore the aspersions you've made to my conjecture.

When I noted that Microsoft had probably broken laws I did not only refer to only US laws. Microsoft is convicted of anti-competitive acts in both the USA and in the EU. Particularly in the EU, you might have noticed there were some fairly hefty fines levied against Microsoft. They will very likely not be the last. Their behavior in influencing standards making-bodies should be subject to heightened scrutiny, given the connexions between their manipulation of the standards process and anti-competitive effects of those actions. In particular, the fact that ODF had gone through the same process establishes the crucial effect of the role of standards and competitive value of that standard. There are many laws that could potentially have been broken here; the competition issue gives authorities the duty to explore fully all relations between Microsoft, Microsoft consultants, and anyone who is or was connected with the standards setting process.

Of course, we are still at a very early stage; once all of the telephone records, emails, meeting notes, etc, between Microsoft, Microsoft consultants and those involved in the standards setting process have been subpoenaed and made public we will know more. That is why my conjecture about Microsoft having broken laws was exactly that, a conjecture. But stick around.

From the US legal perspective IANAL but I should think the possibility of their having violated some of the terms of the settle of their anti-trust case is possible, as well as (and I know this is a long shot) possible RICO violations. The nice thing about that is the ability to confiscate ill-gotten gains.

One thing is clear though: Microsoft have stirred up a giant hornet's nest of activity, from the legal perspective. Couldn't they see that coming or are they really that short sighted?

Also, many who have analyzed the standard itself have found it severely wanting, so they've done damage to the market's perception of their technical prowess as well.

This is a speech given by Steve Pepper, (see the email above, formally lodging a protest against Norway's vote) the widely respected chair of the SC34 mirror committee that reviewed OOXML for Standards Norway and by his colleagues:

Friends, Bloggers, Free Coders, Supporters of Open Standards!
We are not here today in order to bash Microsoft.
We are here because we believe in open standards.
We are not even here today because we are opposed to OOXML.
We are here because we are opposed to OOXML as an ISO standard.
We are not here because we want to discredit the ISO. We are here because we want to defend ISO's integrity.
We are here because we want to draw attention to the scandalous behaviour of the people in Standard Norway whose job it is to represent Norwegian users and software vendors.
And we are here because we want to prevent the adoption of a damaging IT standard in Norway.
I will get back to this shortly. First I want to spend a few minutes explaining some background for the benefit of people who don't understand what this issue is all about. Please bear with me.
This issue is all about documents - digital documents.
It's about how we store documents and how we interchange documents with one another. I'm talking about the kind of documents many of you create every day: reports, letters, articles, school essays, books, theses, spreadsheets, and the like, using programs like Microsoft Word and Excel.
But let us forget documents for a moment and talk instead about hair dryers.
Let me show you an ordinary hair dryer, bought in a shop here in Norway. It has a plug. The plug has two pins. I can plug this hair dryer into any electricity socket anywhere in Norway.
The reason I can do this is because all sockets are the same. There is a standard for sockets in Norway.
The same standard is used in large parts of Europe and elsewhere: If I go to Denmark, I can take this hair dryer, plug it in, and it just works.
I can do the same in Finland, Sweden, Germany and many other countries. I just plug it in and it works.
But if I go to England, I can't just plug it in, because the sockets there are different. They have 3 square pins instead of 2 rounds ones.
If I go to the US or Japan, I can't just plug it in, because their sockets are different again. They have 2 flat pins instead of 2 round ones.
Documents are like hair dryers. We want to be able to plug them in to any piece of software and be able to work with them. But that's not how it is today. If you create a document in Microsoft Word and send it to someone else, that person cannot use it unless they also have Microsoft Word.
I believe that is wrong.
People should not have to pay money to Microsoft in order to read my documents. The way things are at the moment, Microsoft effectively has control of the documents you and I create.
That's not how it should be.
Open standards can solve this problem, and that is why I believe in them. That is why I have spent the last 13 years representing Norway as a volunteer in a committee for international standards. I have worked with many standards, including SGML, XML and Topic Maps, and I have been Chairman of the Norwegian ISO committee since 1995.
Two years ago, my committee approved an open standard for office documents called ODF. ODF was developed through an open and democratic process in an organization called OASIS.
The purpose of ODF was to provide an alternative to what we call "proprietary" formats. Instead of document formats that are owned and controlled by a single vendor and that force you to use a particular piece of software, the ODF people wanted to define an open format that would make it possible to plug your documents into any piece of software.
ODF was developed, as I said, through an open and democratic process. But one important player was absent from that process. The vendor who dominates this market, Microsoft, refused to participate, and they have refused to support ODF since it became a standard.
Instead they decided to create a competing standard called OOXML and to use Ecma as a back door into ISO.
That is why we are here today.
We are not against OOXML itself. In fact, we thank Microsoft for finally after twenty years of market dominance documenting its format in an open specification.
However, we are against ISO's approval of OOXML. The reason for this is simple: It is not in the interests of users like you and me to have two standards for the same purpose. It would be as if Microsoft were to come here and start installing sockets with 3 pins rather than 2, and then force us to buy their hair dryers.
We are not against ISO either. What we are against is the way in which what has always been an open and democratic organization, where each country has one vote, has been subverted by a large multinational corporation.
I do not hate Microsoft. I would like to welcome Microsoft into the standards community, but only if Microsoft abides by the rules and in particular the spirit of the standardization process.
Microsoft has a bad reputation in the standards community. They are the Big Bad Wolf of standards, just like IBM was 20 years ago. But IBM has shown that it is possible to change.
I hope that Microsoft too will change. I think it is possible. But it will only happen if we, the users, force them to change.
Microsoft needs our help. We have to tell them to stop behaving like a bull in a china shop. They have to help them understand that standards work is about co-operation, not about conflict. Standards should not be created through warfare. They should be created through collaboration.
Microsoft has a lot to learn, and it will take time. It will also take time for Microsoft to earn the trust of all those whose work they have sabotaged during the last twenty years.
Microsoft now says that it now believes in open standards. They need to understand that it will take time before everyone really trusts them. They have to start showing less arrogance and more humility, and they have to prove in practice that they mean what they say.
They can take the first step by admitting that they were wrong not to support ODF.
I call on Microsoft to admit its mistake in trying to force OOXML through ISO's fast track procedure, and I call on them to support ODF.
I call on Ecma to withdraw OOXML from ISO and keep control of it themselves. We need it for legacy documents.
I call on Standard Norway to admit that it was wrong to overrule its own committee of experts and on them to change Norway's vote from Yes to No.
I call on the Norwegian Government to stand firm against Microsoft and not to approve OOXML as a Norwegian standard.
Finally I call on users all around the world to look to Norway and follow the example we have set. Raise a storm of protest! Uncover the irregularities that have taken place in your country! Insist that your Governments change their vote to reflect the interests of ordinary people and not the interests of monopolists and bureaucrats.
Dear Norwegians, we are not alone.
Countries representing the majority of the world's population voted No to OOXML and for good reason.
Let me quote just one example. This is from a speech given by the South African Minister for Public Service and Administration, Ms. Geraldine J Fraser-Moleketi. She was speaking at a Conference on the Digital Commons and Open Source Software in Dakar, Senegal just three weeks ago. Here is what she said:
"The adoption of open standards by governments is a critical factor in building interoperable information systems which are open, accessible, fair, and which reinforce democratic culture and good governance practices"
ODF is an open standard developed by a technical committee within the OASIS consortium South Africa is amongst a growing number of National Governments who have adopted ODF over the past year.
It is unfortunate that the leading vendor of office software, which enjoys considerable dominance in the market, chose not to participate and support ODF in its products, but rather to develop its own competing document standardâ€¦
If it is successful, it is difficult to see how consumers will benefit from these two overlapping ISO standards. I would like to appeal to vendors to listen to the demands of consumers as well as Free Software developers. Please work together to produce interoperable document standards. The proliferation of multiple standards in this space is confusing and costly.
Ms. Fraser-Moleketi: The people of Norway are with you, and we beg your forgiveness for the unacceptable behaviour of our standards bureaucracy.
We were robbed of victory in ISO by a mere 3 votes.
Without the irregularities in Norway, that would have been just 2 votes. Reports are coming in of similar irregularities in other countries, including France and Denmark. Let's get those non-representative votes changed. Let's throw OOXML out of ISO.
Microsoft thinks it has won this battle, but I say it's not over yet.
It's never over until the fat lady sings, and this fat lady only just got started.

So the next phase begins...

Regards,

E_F

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

bradencox — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:44:20 -0000

Many laws? Is this intentional hyperbole or did you misspeak?
Even Andy Updegrove, at his standards blog, has this lawyerly statement that casts doubt on whether RULES (not laws) were violated:

“While engaging in appeals in the case of OOXML may expose the inadequacy of the system to address such concerns, they will not solve them, nor necessarily result in a change of the vote in question, since existing rules may not in fact have been violated.”

Now Andy does call for an overhaul of how ICT standards bodies work (given what he perceives to be their increasing importance in society). That may be the case, and it's probably worth exploring, but while related it's a different debate from whether ISO did not follow their own rules, or whether there were OOXML approval "irregularities."

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:28:14 -0000

Braden:

Casual readers might also mistake your series of assertions as a response to the points I have made, so I'll briefly post some of the rebuttals here.

For those who are interested in digging deeper into the facts surrounding the OOXML 'standard', just go over to Groklaw where they've got quite a lot of facts and links, too. I think its notable that Microsoft does not attempt to reply to the numerous posts over there.

You did not respond to the fact the the Standards Council of Canada was opposed to the standard, and although the official Norway body has voted in favor of OOXML here's a statement from one of the technical committee members, and I'll leave it to your readers to draw their own conclusions:

Formal protest regarding the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500
I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. I wish to inform you of serious irregularities in connection with the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML) and to lodge a formal protest.
You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway’s vote from No with comments to Yes.
Because of this irregularity, a call has been made for an investigation by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry with a view to changing the vote.
I hereby request that the Norwegian decision be suspended pending the results of this investigation.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Pepper
Chairman, SN/K185 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 mirror committee)
(sign.)

It seems that only 2 of 21 voted to approve OOXML in Norway, but the official standards body sent in a yes vote, as covered in Groklaw:

Norway's at least as bad. Here's an article from Norway, and the translation of the title of the article is, "Scandal in Standards Norway. I didn't write that headline. They did. And here's why. The article says there should be an investigation of the irregularities there, because while there were only two votes to approve, from Microsoft and a business partner, Statoilhydro, and all the others voted no, 21 votes, they approved anyway. Here's how they shuffled the deck in Norway. So they put everyone out of the room, and Standards Norway, three people were left in the room, and they usurped the decision and made it their business to decide to approve anyway.

So how does that meet your standards for democratic and transparent?

There are investigations underway in a number of countries, including Philippines, and the EU is investigating the situation in Poland.

There is no contradiction between the lack of transparency by the standards body and the fact that the yes votes have been traced to Microsoft. Those who traced the votes have done so with very little help of the ISO standards body. They have traced these votes through hard work and perserverance.

Here's an example of the standards body not following its own rules:

Not to burst any bubbles, but I think the ISO folks have failed to follow the rules. I know. How could *that* happen? Someone tell Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Here. Read it for yourself, from the relevant Directive [PDF], clause 13.12 on page 60:
13.12 The time period for post ballot activities by the respective responsible parties shall be as follows:
Immediately after the vote, ITTF shall send the results of the vote to the JTC 1 Secretariat and to the SC Secretariat, and for the latter to distribute the results without delay to its NBs, to any NBs having voted that are not members of the SC and to the proposer.
As soon as possible after the distribution of the results of the vote to its NBs but in not less than two and one-half months the SC Secretariat shall convene a ballot resolution group meeting if required;
In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance.
So where is it? It's been more than a month. The BRM was from February 25 to 29. Uh oh. Anybody get one?

It seems clear that many laws were probably broken by Microsoft to get OOXML approved, and I hope all those guilty will be prosecuted. That probably won't happen, though.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

bradencox — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:27:06 -0000

Casual readers may mistake your assertions to be something resembling a set of facts, which can't be left standing, so here goes:
1. It is NOT absolutely clear the standards process was abused. In fact the DIN, and Standards Norway and the UK have all come out and called BS on the smear campaign. The fact that there are ongoing investigations has more to do with the nature of our overly regulatory and litigious society - "if you don't win, sue".
2."the process was not transparent" It's hard to prove a lack of transparency (often a catchall accusation made by the disaffected but sometimes true). But the reality is that standards organizations are not governments, they are not the UN, they are private, and are not perfectly transparent (though governments and the UN aren't perfectly transparent either, just in different ways). There seem to be hundreds, if not thousands, of standards bodies, and each seem to have their own rules that allow for private discourse and discussion outside of the bombast of the spin artists. But your lack of transparency assertion seems to contradict your next point.
3. "as nearly every vote in favor" is traced to Microsoft. Which is it, no transparency or transparency such that votes can be traced?
4. You say: "The OOXML "standard" was pushed through on a special 'fast track' process" WRONG AGAIN!. Nothing special about it. "Fast Track" is the one of the regular options used when taking a standard developed in another standards body to ISO. ODF went through a similar 'fast' process to ISO JTC 1 under what is known as a PAS submission. Same timeline as OOXML. So stop just spouting Groklaw rumor and do some research.
5. "and it is well documented that fraud was committed..blah blah blah" WRONG! There's rumor and innuendo and interpretation differences. Fraud is a serious accusation, requiring intentional misrepresentation, but so far I haven't seen any documentation of fraud. Here your post lacks the value that you can occasionally provide in your comments on this blog...
6. ...and continues to digress. Yes, ACT has a "relationship" with Microsoft - they are a member of our trade association, along with eBay, Oracle, Orbitz, VeriSign, and several thousand other smaller companies. But then you go on to quote sourcewatch as saying we are defunct... I hope not, or else I'm out of a job! But sadly that's pretty much the capstone for the quality of your research, at least on this issue.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

eee_eff — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:52:10 -0000

When you say:

If you’re like me and think that standards bodies will play an increasingly important role in the future, you want to see a process with integrity, accountability and transparency.

I agree with you. However, it is absolutely clear that the standards process here was abused, and there are several investigations on-going about the way that technical committee recommendations were over-ridden, almost always by individuals who had business relationship with Microsoft. Canada has objected to the vote, and Norway has an investigation pending.

The process was not transparent, and was clearly not decided by technical issues or the merits of the OOXML 'standard.' as nearly every vote in favor of the OOXML has been traced to Microsoft's manipultation of the process.

The OOXML "standard" was pushed through on a special 'fast track' process, and it is well documented that fraud was committed in several of the representations that Microsoft-connected individuals have made regarding the substance of the meetings which have been held.

Don Marti was quite right when he stated that "It would be appropriate to disclose here the business relationship between ACT and Microsoft."

More particularly, it should be disclosed that "Braden Cox is Research and Policy Counsel at the Association for Competitive Technology." and that the Association for Competitive Technology has the following description from sourcewatch (www.sourcewatch.org)

The Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) was a group that was founded in 1998 in response to the anti-trust action against Microsoft then taking place in the United States. (The groups website is no longer active and the last archived version of its website dates from July 2007, so the group now appears to be defunct).
The initial version of the groups website, which was first indexed in October 1999, stated that "as a grassroots information technology trade association, ACT is working to preserve the freedom to achieve, compete and innovate." (The group's original office address was 1225 Eye St. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC, 20005.

In any case here is the web page of the Standards Council of Canada which explains why they are opposed to the standard.

Additionally, it should be noted that if Microsoft actually promoted a truly open standard, i.e., one that was clearly defined and was free of patent encumberances, so that anyone could write software under the license of his or her chosing that would implement that standard, no one would object to it.

What Microsoft instead did was promote a poorly defined standard fully of patent encumberances, so that they could promote their fake standard as open.

Yes, they won the battle, but in the course of doing so they so clearly have shown their true stripes that everyone know knows Microsoft for what they are.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

bradencox — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:44:06 -0000

Carme, thanks for your substantive comment.

I do share your thoughts regarding the meaning of standards. My message / messenger dichotomy was more of a product / process analogy, and I know the two are intertwined when it comes to standards creation and approval.

Obviously standards bodies have a reputation they want to protect. So you'd think that a standard that makes it out as approved carries weight, that the technical merits of the standard are robust within that which defines a standard.

But what happens if a significant (not just "some", as I bet that every standard fails to make everybody happy) number think it's not? Well, then the standards body gets a black eye, and so do those organizations that support the standard. But NOT because those that opposed the standard make a big fuss. Sure, there's definitely a benefit for Microsoft being able to say OOXML is an approved standard. But I also think the real punishment will come from the marketplace, when developers and consumers reject using the standard in their products.

But perhaps the normal process of market rejection has been distorted here. Although the market is moving towards "openness" and interoperability in many areas, in the software space we're seeing increased government involvement. It's a concern over document preservation, and governments are specifying the use of open document formats.

This government involvement is why many more people are paying attention to a technical, highly geekified subject. And it's why I'm involved - as a believer in market processes and a skeptic of government regulation.

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

Carme — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:06:45 -0000

Framing the issue as "Microsoft-vs-IBM" is simplistic and misguided. The real issue here is standards - what they are meant to achieve, how they are made and how useful they are. What you're saying is "it's a political match and Microsoft won this round." But that's completely missing the point: in a healthy standards process politics shouldn't be part of the game at all. The only thing that should matter is the technical merits of the standard, not which political or business interests stand behind it.

What has people up in arms is not that "Microsoft's standard was approved"; it's that a file specification that is very technically deficient - it is huge, contains previously rejected specifications, and has literally thousands of known problems found by standards bodies around the world - was approved with a "fast track" process that should be reserved for mature specifications with no known problems. The standards process is not, and shouldn't be, a "popularity contest" of which interest gets the most votes; it's a long technical process where engineers work for years to come up with the best way to do or represent something. The minute it turns into a popularity contest where the winner gets to rubber-stamp its own possibly-flawed specification as a standard, the process has already been subverted and lost its meaning. It doesn't matter which specific interest won.

This lack of focus on the real problem is most apparent in this quote: "... trying to blame the messenger (standards bodies), in addition to the message (the standard)...". According to this view ISO is saying: "why blame us when it's the standard that is bad? We don't make up the standard, we just approve what we are given." Which is, of course, completely false. Comparing messenger/message and standards body/standard is utterly misunderstanding the role of standards bodies and the standards process. Standards bodies are responsible for creating the standard. They will usually use an existing specification as a starting point, but it's their task and responsibility to create a high-quality and technically superior standard. The minute they turn into a "messenger", simply "passing along" specifications submitted to them and declaring them as standards, they have lost the sole reason for their existence. If ISO is just the messenger, what meaning does an ISO standard have? What is the benefit of operating such a body at all?

It's easy to paint a pictures of two competing companies where Microsoft wants to get OOXML approved as a standard and the other side wants to have it banned from existence. But that is simply not the case. What the "other side" actually wants is that OOXML goes through the same rigorous and, yes, potentially long process of discussion and refinement that any specification needs to go through before it's good enough to be declared a standard. Declaring OOXML a standard now is sure to benefit Microsoft financially but it doesn't suddenly make OOXML any better. It's still the same deeply-flawed specification, and now Microsoft has even less incentive to fix it. So while we certainly didn't get a better file format, the value of an "ISO standard" was greatly reduced. This is the real issue at hand. Not how Microsoft out-maneuvered IBM in a political game, but how it managed to subvert the ISO process and protocols to turn it into a mere "messenger".

Re: OOXML: The Integrity of a Standards Body

Don Marti — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:13:02 -0000

It would be appropriate to disclose here the business relationship between ACT and Microsoft.