Hi Alex,

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Microsoft OOXML spec is technically unfit, and the review of proposed changes was, well, less than adequate.

I do not believe that comparing a 6000 page highly complex technical standard that has been rammed through a fast track process and has also been changed during that fast track process with the changes voted on en masse without proper technical review of the changes, to a supermarket or (in your link) a video store will save the reputation of the ISO.

Supermarkets don't store government documents or public records. Neither do video stores. Perhaps the ISO should just do as the Steve Miller song suggests and "take the money and run" on this one.

What's done is done.

@gfterry

It would be wrong to over-read the comparisons between the two, but so far as the campaigning went there are some resonances -- though perhaps (as your comment reveals) the Tesco campaign has lower levels of disinformation and conspiracy theory!

- Alex.

I think the conspiracy theory is backed up by one or two facts. The lack of mainstream interest in the dis29500 controversy points to a difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public. The mainstream press would appear to think that the what Amy Winehouse had for breakfast is more interesting than a global monopolist ripping apart the fabric of standardisation for their own ends.

@Alan

You're right of course that ICT standardisation is a tougher sell to the world at large than Tesco's expansion plans (or Amy Winehouse). I do get the impression though that the "campaign" against DIS 29500 (with some exceptions) spent rather too much time addressing itself.

- Alex.

Your complete lack of understanding of why people are pissed of at the way everyone involved have handled this is amazing. Frankly, if I had presided over something like the farce of a BRM that the reports from it indicate, I'd have been ashamed and apologetic, not making fun of the protests of the people who are now with good reason increasingly seeing ISO and a large number of the national bodies as unfit to handle their tasks.

"the "campaign" against DIS 29500 (with some exceptions) spent rather too much time addressing itself."

I agree and plead guilty. Unfortunately, as an individual, besides lobbying BSI or PM office, there seems to be nothing else I can do but to talk about it. Rightly or wrongly, the whole ISO process seems to exclude everyone except National Bodies and Industry Association.

About Mill Road Campaign against Tesco: I live in Cambridge (near Marshall Airport). All I know is that if Tesco open in Mill Road, the character of that road will change. Today, it looks a bit like it is stuck in the pre-supermarket days. I am not resistant to changes and I think a local Tesco there can have beneficial effect on the area. Only problem I really have is its impact on traffic. It is already very bad on Mill Road. Stagecoach drivers do not like the Citi2 route coz it goes through Mill Road.

I have long wondered were you stand in all this Alex. Thanks for it a bit clearer.

@Alex: "The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign is highly organised and professional, and as an opposition campaign is deserving of study. It is fascinating to compare it to the (somewhat less organised and professional) campaigns surrounding a certain ICT standard about which I sometimes blog"

Basically, you are saying that there was NO organised and professional campaign against OOXML, and I agree with you: it was mainly a lot of independent people reacting against a gross abuse of the ISO Fast Track process by Microsoft.

The same cannot be said about the pro-OOXML campaign orchestrated in a very structured and professional (and apparently successful) way by Microsoft.

This contradicts the claim made by Microsoft that IBM was organising the opposition to OOXML: if it was the case, what you call a campaign would have been very organised and professional.


On another subject, it will now be interesting to see how ISO will act:
- either ISO changes the Fast Track way of working to prevent a repetition of what we saw, and it will be a clear indication that OOXML should never have been Fast tracked,
- or ISO does not change its rules, and it will be an indication that Microsoft has just redefined to a very low level the acceptable "quality standard" (pun intended) to be used for submitting a standard to ISO.

In both case, ISO is loosing its credibility as an independent body that defines high quality standards. This is a sad day.


Finally, let me say that I was very surprised by this post and your comments. The way you mock the process and the *lack* of professional, organised campaign against OOXML is not to your credit. Yes, today is a sad day.

>> It is fascinating to compare it to the (somewhat less organised
>> and professional) campaigns surrounding a certain ICT standard

And yet, according to the perpetrator of that "certain ICT standard", the opposition towards it was extremely "organised"; by one of its principal competitors in the market, to be precise. Had it not been for that competitor, then it would have been "business as usual" for the "standard" says the perpetrator.

So, either a) that competitor didn't do a very good job, or b) maybe that competitor wasn't the sole reason for the opposition in the first place.

Discuss.

Cheers,

- Mike

@Vidar

Sorry you're "pissed off" - I hope I'm not "making fun" of anyone. I can however reassure you that the BRM was not a "farce" as reported, but (given the challenging constraints) it was both orderly and effective. By far my favourite description of it comes from Jirka Kosek, when he characterised it as "friendly, peaceful and cosy".

@Wu Mingshi

BSI was open for public comment during the review stage, and had a panel of approx. 30 people working on the technical review of the DIS (nobody wanting to join the panel was refused). The committee reviewing the DIS encourages user group representation -- it has XML UK represented, and until recently UKUUG was represented too, for example.

Recently my standards colleague Inigo Surguy wrote a blog entry advising readers how to submit comments on the DIS. Guess how many good technical comments we received. I'll give you a clue: it was a good round number. In fact, guess how many truly meaningful technical objections were emailed to BSI over the whole course of the project. I can remember two. By contrast of course, there were a gabillion emails which were either form letters of MS origin, or copy-and-paste jobs from noooxml.org.

On Cambridge traffic - no controversy there! I don't think anybody is going to disagree that's a problem. I read somewhere we have officially the slowest average traffic speed of any EU city.

@Kieron

I am glad that where I stood was/is a mystery. Over the last year I have been accused of bias of both flavours!

@Luc

Thanks for your (as always) thoughtful comment. I think it's undeniable that there have been corporate dollars involved in all "sides" of the campaiging that took place, whatever the corporate/independent balance was.

I'm not sure what "process" I am mocking. However some people deserve a good deal worse than mockery for their very bad behaviour (see M. David Peterson's piece for a related view. Believe me I would dearly love to see a higher-quality level of debate than the blogosphere had (and is having). Patrick Durusau's latest piece is also very pertinent here.

As to ISO ...

The rules, and the fate of the Fast Track process, and in the hands of the the ISO and IEC members of JTC 1. The Directives are currently undergoing a major review and reform process. My own personal view is that both the accelerated standards procedures (PAS and Fast Track) should be abolished.

@Mike

Although there was a lot of lobbying, there was also a lot of paranoia!

"...Believe me I would dearly love to see a higher-quality level of debate than the blogosphere had (and is having)." and

"...the Tesco campaign has lower levels of disinformation and conspiracy theory!"

Do I understand you correctly that in your opinion, the opponents are guilty of spreading disinformation and conspiracy theory, while the submitters side has not shown any negative behaviour at all?

I think the exact opposite is true: As an independent, not in any way affiliated individual, I highly welcome the access to various blogging sources from pro to contra, from all around the world. These all lets me make up my own view.

Do you think the development of open standards - on any side - would be better off without such a thing as the blogsphere?

@Stefan

> Do I understand you correctly that in your opinion, the opponents
> are guilty of spreading disinformation and conspiracy theory,
> while the submitters side has not shown any negative behaviour at all?

No, that is not my opinion. However, while all "sides" have engaged in lobbying, my experience is that it is some from the "anti-OOXML" side who have been more conspicuously following the guidelines that Patrick Durusau sarcastically advocates here. I noted with only grim pleasure that noooxml.org have recently adjusted their front page to remove a particularly unfair slur they had made against an individual (which even members of noooxml.org were disclaiming in the comments section). I don't suppose an apology will appear.

> I think the exact opposite is true: As an independent, not in any way affiliated individual,
> I highly welcome the access to various blogging sources from pro to contra, from all around
> the world. These all lets me make up my own view.

When reading blogs about this project, it is necessary to be discriminating, just as it would be if you were learning about anything else from the blogosphere. There's a lot of rubbish out there. Most of it, in fact. Reading all the blogs about OOXML and then attempting to take an averaged view, would give you about as an accurate result as doing that when researching from blogs whether the Apollo moon landings actually took place.

> Do you think the development of open standards - on any side - would be better off without
> such a thing as the blogsphere?

Now that is a fascinating question!

Personally, no. I like to see standards people blogging. But I have to say that there have been many times over the last year when the "keep quiet and keep your head down" advice offered to me by many wise standardisers has seemed rather attractive ...

- Alex.

Stefan:

I can't guess what Alex's opinion is, but mine is an unequivocal "yes, the standards world would be better off without a blogosphere paying attention to it." There's a reason why diplomacy is carried out by a caste of Brahmins in secret without any input from the man on the street. Standard-setting is a form of diplomacy, so it is totally sensible that the ISO process should be carried out behind closed doors by a group of people who know what they are talking about. There is no such thing as an 'instant expert' and there is little value in having someone who doesn't understand the system, the history, or the technical details of the topic at hand involved in a standards process.

Interesting comparison. The fact that the DIS29500 process did not garner media interest is nothing in and of itself; in fact, it should NOT be of interest to any media, because it should be non-news. The fact that some felt the ISO process for DIS29500 should need exposure speaks poorly of the bias that was permitted to enter. By way of example, the very fact that there were and are so many technical comments remaining should be enough reason for it to be disapproved. That many NBs are voting to approve in spite of the large number of outstanding unresolved technical comments speaks for itself -- it is not on its technical merits that the draft standard is being approved.

I would appreciate it if you could cite any other ISO standard which was approved with even a fraction of the outstanding unresolved technical comments.

@nksingh

"There's a reason why diplomacy is carried out by a caste of Brahmins in secret without any input from the man on the street. Standard-setting is a form of diplomacy, so it is totally sensible that the ISO process should be carried out behind closed doors by a group of people who know what they are talking about."

Are you really being serious? This is hysterically funny...

The "group of people who know what they are talking about" used to exist. Now they are surrounded by groups of people (and money) that care nothing for technicalities.

I really can't quite believe you just made that comment, in public. Please excuse me if you were being ironic or sarcastic, but I have seen your "contributions" elsewhere so I can only guess you are sincere in your opinion.

Oh, yes, you might like to see what the Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 thinks about Norway's recent voting process [url]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080331144223128[/url]

@Alex,

>> The Directives are currently undergoing a major review and reform
>> process. My own personal view is that both the accelerated standards
>> procedures (PAS and Fast Track) should be abolished.

That's good to hear. I only hope that it doesn't come too late to rescue ISO's somewhat battered reputation. I can't help thinking that this door should have been closed while you still had the horse on the inside.


>> Although there was a lot of lobbying, there was also a lot of paranoia!
Doubtless. But as they say, just because you're paranoid....

Cheers,

- Mike

I had a couple of rants in response to this. here and here they won't make any difference to the outcome, but it made me feel better.

"When campaigning against a planning decision about a local supermarket people march about with hand painted banners. When campaigning against a new road people build tree houses and don't wash. When campaigning against animal testing it is traditional to handcuff yourself to the laboratory gates and be dragged away screaming. When campaigning against a redundant and commercially motivated market distorting international standard we wrote words. We held a conference. We wore suits. We handed out information to people who asked for it. Some people waved a few flags. We got branded as disorganised and unprofessional."

A data point: I'm interested in the OOXML process/debate, but have no involvement in it, and not a lot of experience with standards setting. Reading blogs has been pretty much my only window into the process, and through it I've learned a lot. I've reached a point where, while I still oppose ISO approval of OOXML for a variety of reasons, I can understand reasons why others think differently.

I can even imagine reasons, apart from corruption and bribery, why NBs might vote in favour of DIS29500

Obviously there's a lot of crud being written out there, but by keeping an open-ish mind and trying sort things intelligently, I think I've got a fairly rounded understanding of how things have worked in this case.

Ultimately, I can live with the (presumed) approval of DIS29500. I'm left with an abiding distrust of the current editor of the ODF standard, but I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over that!

nksingh: "I can't guess what Alex's opinion is, but mine is an unequivocal "yes, the standards world would be better off without a blogosphere paying attention to it. There is no such thing as an 'instant expert' and there is little value in having someone who doesn't understand the system, the history, or the technical details of the topic at hand involved in a standards process."

The standards do have an impact on society, however society should not have impact on the process that leads to those very standards? Is that what you imply?

I might not be an expert, but have used ".doc" et al. for years and think it's really about time to get out of that lock. Half of my life is stored on my computer, so I have a direct and very personal interest in understanding what's going on with document formats! Obviously, I'm not alone with this interest. This is why I follow this whole debate!


"Standard-setting is a form of diplomacy, so it is totally sensible that the ISO process should be carried out behind closed doors by a group of people who know what they are talking about.

What's the point then if even some of the people BEHIND those closed doors are taken away the power to vote, or decide?

Oh, and as for stupidity, does it always stop at the doorstep?

@Alex: "Personally, no. I like to see standards people blogging. But I have to say that there have been many times over the last year when the "keep quiet and keep your head down" advice offered to me by many wise standardisers has seemed rather attractive ..."

I agree that more talking does not always equal more knowledge or understanding. I also see that the truth is not always in the middle.

But I also believe that political and social interests should not too strongly be excluded from the standards processes, mostly because of the impact of standards on society. I also believe that corporations interests from any side should be held at a certain niveau, because of the same reason.

Of course, standards processes are highly technical and not my job, but still the output concerns me, too.

With respect to the unfair slur on noooxml.org, I know what you are talking about. That was an error, which was pointed out and removed. Perhaps not quite as swiftly as it should, and the error should not have been made in the first place (not that there was a factual error, there wasn't. The fact just didn't mean anything of significance). Correcting errors and striving for accuracy is a good thing.
I would dearly love to know what possible innocent explanation there could be for some of the astonishing stories coming in from around the world. I would like to make sure that any inaccuracies in these stories are corrected as soon as possible.

@Alan

> I would appreciate it if you could cite any other ISO standard
> which was approved with even a fraction of the outstanding
> unresolved technical comments.

Well here's an interesting question: which of these two standards 26300 (ODF 1.0) or 29500 (OOXML) do you think has the highest number of registered defects against it?

ODF 1.0 remember had no BRM (the UK voted against the decision to cancel it, interestingly).


@Mike

> ISO's somewhat battered reputation

I think in the DIS 29500 goldfish bowl one can get a distorted view of the significance of this project in standardisation terms. To get some perspective, take a look at a project like ISO 26000. Its working group alone, with over 500 delegates, is four times the size of our supposedly momentous BRM!

To ISO and IEC the controversies surrounding this project create about as much bother as two insects fighting on an elephant's back.


@Alan Bell

Nothing wrong with using words for campaigning, so long as they are appropriate.

As to "a conference" being part of the campaign against DIS 29500 - this would be the Geneva OFE one, right? If so, yours is a frank characterisation of the purpose of that event.

And what were the suits all about anyway?


@Rob

You're right -- Patrick, as a man who has in his time been hunted by the Klu Klux Klan, is unlikely to be overly troubled by your distrust (which is, of course, not deserved).


@Stefan

> But I also believe that political and social interests should not
> too strongly be excluded from the standards processes

Personally, I agree - and I think it's evident such concerns have (quite properly) played a part in some NB decision making in this project.


@Alan Bell

Yes, unfounded personal attacks should be retracted/corrected or, much much better, not made in the first place. Multi-billion dollar companies like MS, IBM, and Tesco are bit thicker skinned however.

Alex, speaking of thick skinned. Jan van den Beld is taking his defense of ECMA to the airwaves. His blog seems a bit testy as he conveniently divides the world into tow groups. Those who believe in standards and the "vocal few being so negative and vitriolic about the current ICT standardization system."

Based on your early comment about appropriateness of the fast track process, he would seem to be lumping you into the category of bad guy.

It seems that you have managed incur the wrath of just about everyone;) I hope that you can continue to keep your thick skin.

@Dave: I would describe Jan van den Beld's blog as more than "testy". He says the opponents of fast-tracking MSOOXML are "negative and vitriolic" and then goes on to throw vitriolic abuse at them, describing them as "like religious zealots", "parochial", conducting a "scorched earth campaign", guilty of "false claims", and on and on .... just the tone of his blog, and the lack of factual back-up compared with articles by the people he is attacking, e.g. this one, would tend to turn me off.

@Alex,

>> To ISO and IEC the controversies surrounding this project
>> create about as much bother as two insects fighting on an
>> elephant's back.

And here's hoping that continues to be the case for ever more. Sadly though, I think you'll find that at some point in the future, you'll realise that you had the positions of the elephant and the insects the wrong way around in your analogy.

Cheers,

- Mike

"Well here's an interesting question: which of these two standards 26300 (ODF 1.0) or 29500 (OOXML) do you think has the highest number of registered defects against it?"

What does "registered defects" mean? Could it mean perhaps that if ODF had one registered defect, it would be more than OOXML, since OOXML has only just be approved and so has none?

The OFE conference was held at the same time and place as the BRM. It was never ever the intent to disrupt the BRM in any way shape or form. Claims to the contrary are disinformation and paranoia in my view. From your perspective on the third floor (where I never went) did anyone miss part of the BRM because of the conference? Turn up late? Leave early? I doubt it. I wore a suit because that is what I wear to organised and professional events. There was no dress code but many other people were wearing suits. The Microsoft monitors wore suits too (perhaps I am being paranoid suggesting they were there to monitor the conference, I suppose it could be that Microsoft are genuinely interested in Standards and the Future of the Internet).

Alex,

I wrote to the BSI twice. I wrote letters uniquely - off my own bat - no form letters involved.

Once, the first time, to express my admiration for the many thousands of comments produced by the UK about the specification. It must have been a lot of work to produce - a mammoth achievement.

How many of the thousand or so comments made by the UK were individually discussed? 10,15? You yourself described that for particular comments "Such gobbledegook has no place in an ISO standard"? How is the language particularly improved?

So my second letter said; how come, when you did all that hard work you can now say "Yes"?

I got a reply "Thank you for your enquiry regarding ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Information technology – Office Open XML file formats.

The review process for this project closes at midnight Central European Time on 29 March 2008.

Please visit www.bsigroup.com/news next week for more information"

A wonderfully personal response.

the website says "IST/41, the BSI technical committee which mirrors ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 34, reached a consensus decision on behalf of the UK following its full technical evaluation of the draft international standard, ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML (ECMA 376)."

It doesn't even say that they voted yes!

@Dave @Nick

> thick-skinned

Well, I have been called a traitor and a wanker, accused of taking bribes, compared to a Nazi, damned to Hell and had cancer wished on me. Classy. I'm not sure whether these were from the "organised and professional" anti-OOXML people or not, but I don't see anyone complaining about bad behaviour in the anti-crowd. In fact, I notice the slur on a standards colleague I complained about above on noooxml.org has NOT been removed, just unlinked from the front page, and that other trash sites still link to the offending story.

Oh, and I see noooxml.org is running a similarly silly slur against me now. Tsk. I'm fully expecting to hear next that the Duke of Edinburgh was behind OOXML standardisation.

Jan van den Beld is famous for having been an energetic advocate of all things Ecma. The idea (I'm not sure if he holds it) that the Fast Track was a good way to standardise DIS 29500 is however not one I agree with - in fact it's one not (m)any people agree with outside Ecma itself, I suspect. Otherwise, I think JvdB's analysis of the commercial factors at play (if that's the right word) in this project is essentially correct.

@Kieron

My question on defects was a genuine one (I believe ODF has > 100 defects known; OOXML is not really possible to evaluate in these terms yet, but I am sure the number of defects will grow to well over 100 fairly quickly) But you asked for a standard that passed with comparable faultiness and I named one. I sometimes see the myth being spread that ODF 1.0 is some kind of paragon of technical correctness. Errr, no.

@Alan

Well the OFE event is all water under the bridge so I will be brief. I don't think many BRM delegates went - sometimes they were too busy doing technical homework; sometimes they were just too embarrassed or wary. Personally, I think the event was a stunt too far. Its very existence did however have the effect of galvanising a fair amount of opinion -- Patrick Durusau, for example, described learning of it as his "Damascus moment". Who knows, maybe the OFE event was the tipping point in this standardisation project, just not in the way intended ...

As to Microsoft and suits - yeah ... what was all that about too?

@Joel

I was referring in my earlier comment to letters which lacked original technical coment. I'm sure any letters of thanks are always received with appreciation! And yes, this project has required a very great deal of work from a large number of committed volunteers.

BSI's policy is very clear, and it also applied (if you remember) when they kept quiet around the time of the vote last September. BSI may well be releasing further information in due course.

In general, countries won't have been concerned about how many of their comments were discussed; they care whether comments were resolved satisfactorily, which is a rather different thing.

Alex,

Hope your having a good week. I tried to reply earlier but the captcha ate my comment .

Do you believe that the UK should be happy that all its comments have been resolved satisfactorily?

Personally I believe the opposite:

- no-one in the UK delegation, or probably the ISO, has seen the final document.
- some of the comment fixes contradict each other
- every item that was debated was rewritten; every item in the block vote is correct? to use the vernacular "cobblers"

On another point; it seems to me that there are 2 very clear sides to this debate. Microsoft, its partners, etc. vs. Oracle, Google, IBM, Sun, FFII, ODF Foundation, Becta, etc. I am surprised that the BSI claim a "consensus" decision at all. It could have claimed a majority decision - but a consensus decision feels particularly unlikely. Especially as they voted "No, with comments" in the last round. Maybe this was the result of the Abilene paradox? for me that sounds unlikely.

- Joel

@Joel

> Do you believe that the UK should be happy that all its comments have been resolved
> satisfactorily?

It's not a question of all comments. If we insisted on standards being perfect, we would have no standards. Look at XML 1.0 - fairly clean, fairly short (40 pages or so), but over 200 errata to date!

> Personally I believe the opposite:
>
> - no-one in the UK delegation, or probably the ISO, has seen the final document.
> - some of the comment fixes contradict each other
> - every item that was debated was rewritten; every item in the block vote
> is correct?
> to use the vernacular "cobblers"

Evidently many subject experts throughout the world who have thoroughly studied the documents in question take a differing view on the overall result. Are you basing your view on first hand-study or the cherry-picked information from those with pre-determined anti-OOXML agendas?

> On another point; it seems to me that there are 2 very clear sides to this debate.

I am inclined to agree with Patrick Durusau (who is sitting next to me right now arguing with Jean Paoli about semantic interoperability), that standards should not have "sides" (let's move on) ...

> Microsoft, its partners, etc. vs. Oracle, Google, IBM, Sun, FFII, ODF Foundation,
> Becta, etc. I am surprised that the BSI claim a "consensus" decision at all.

BSI aren't making a claim, they are stating a fact.

- Alex.

"BSI aren't making a claim, they are stating a fact."

Sounds just like a "politician" to me. You know the "economical with truth" kind of statement.

Sorry, but for the BSi who raised - what was it now, over 600 comments in the first round - to approve unreservedly smacks of something very smelly.

I'm sure there will be investigations and accusations from all side, <sarcasm>but because our standards body operates in such an open and transparent manner</sarcasm>, we'll probably never get to know the truth.

TTFN

@The Open Sourcerer

> over 600 comments in the first round

Well, part of what matters is how well those commentes were addressed/resolved.

More info from BSI here.

- Alex.

Alex, obviously your call for more professionalism has been heard.

Your call:
"The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign is highly organised and professional, and as an opposition campaign is deserving of study. It is fascinating to compare it to the (somewhat less organised and professional) campaigns surrounding a certain ICT standard about which I sometimes blog – and it is a reality check to note that this local group of campaigners have managed to get more national media attention (BBC Radio 4 mp3 audio) than DIS 29500 ever did!"

The result:
Well, probably thanks to your advice, the "No OOXML at ISO" campaign is now highly organised and professional. They have nice posters and placards, at least as much professional as those of "No Tesco at Mill Road" :
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-52412/oo ... out-of-iso
And they have managed to get national media attention in Norway: see for example the following videos from mainstream televisions :
http://www.dn.no/dntv/teknologi/article ... d=dntv_rel
http://atvs.vg.no/player/index.php?id=15735

I'm just surprised that you are quite tepid in your appreciation of these efforts:
"100 or so geeks decamped from the adjacent open source conference to stand in the rain and wave placards while Steve Pepper had fun making a speech and brandishing a hairdrier (perhaps risking quips about 'hot air' in the process)." (http://www.adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080409-221633)