The documents from the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 BRM are available (see below) for NBs to consider (if they wish) in these final few weeks of the Fast Track process; and during this time NBs that voted in the 2 September ballot may (if they wish) change that vote – see the SC 34 Home Page for details.

While the National Bodies deliberate, it is once again time for me to enter a state of Purdah, and so I will be remaining silent on all things related to DIS 29500 for the time being. Let us hope (perhaps against hope) that the next few weeks will see some sensible, high-quality debate ...

Get them here:

• Edited Notes of the Meeting
• Resolutions of the Meeting
• Result of Proposed disposition of comments
• Documents referenced by the resolutions (1.7MB ZIP)

While we wait for the official results and announcement, a different perspective (and a clue to how I keep sane) ...


Badge & Gavel

... for meeting delegates (or followers of the process) ...

1. Read the FAQ

SC 34 has published a FAQ on the BRM. Attendees (and anyone interested in the BRM) should read it.

2. Heads of Delegation have their own preliminary meeting

An invitation has been issued to the Heads of Delegation of all attending National Bodies (NBs) for an informal meeting on the evening before the BRM (other delegates will not be admitted). In this meeting I will cover various points concerning meeting management and logistics. The meeting is entirely optional, and no delegation will be at any disadvantage whatsoever during the BRM itself even if its HoD does not attend this informational meeting.

3. Heads of Delegation have a special role

Given the high level of controversy, HoDs have a particularly significant role in managing their delegations in such a way that the overall BRM is productive and succeeds in improving the quality of the text. ISO and IEC consider it crucial that this principal goal of the BRM should be fulfilled.

4. Don't bank on net connectivity

The BRM venue promises wireless internet connectivity, but experience shows that venues can have difficulty coping when 120 people simultaneously demand connectivity. Plan to bring offline copies of any electronic documents your delegation needs.

5. Remember the scope of the BRM

As this FAQ item makes clear, the BRM can only discuss matters which can result in instructions to the Editor to make changes to the written specification. I will permit no discussion on topics such as standards policy or IPR, unless they can reasonably lead to instructions to the Editor which he is empowered to enact. This is not to deny the fact that NBs may find such topics of interest; but a BRM is not the forum for formally airing them.

6. Be prepared

NBs should know what they want to discuss and know what their position is on the comments/responses which are significant to them. If any NB delegation actively wants to discuss the response to one of its (or any) comment, it should be prepared to state a concern when called on to contribute.

7. Remember the BRM does not vote on DIS approval

It is worth re-iterating, the BRM is a meeting which can approve a new text; it is not a meeting which decides whether the DIS becomes an International Standard. That is determined by the status of NB votes 30 days after the BRM has finished.

8. "ISO/IEC"

Bloggers and commentators take note: properly speaking OOXML is attempting to become an "ISO/IEC" standard, not just an "ISO" standard. JTC 1 is the body which carries out dual standardisation for these parent organisations.

9. Bring photo ID to register

In order to attend the BRM, a delegate must appear on the delegate list which has already been submitted by their national body to SC 34. They must identify themselves at the registration desk with photo ID (e.g. a passport).

10. Jaywalking

In Switzerland, jaywalking is illegal. Let this be symbolic for expected standards of behaviour at the BRM!

- Alex.

Tracking OOXML issues

No matter where one stands in the DIS 29500 debate, one fact is indisputable: the vast amount of human effort that is being expended. This struck me yesterday as BSI technical committees met to agree a UK position on Ecma’s responses – a task that is nearly complete thanks, in no small part, to the use of Mantis for tracking each of the UK comments and its proposed disposition.

The work however does not end there as the UK must finalise its view on other NBs’ comments too. As the JTC 1 Directives explicitly state, the reason why all NB comments are distributed is to allow all NBs to form an opinion on all of them:


By extension, of course, NBs shall naturally be considering Ecma’s responses to these comments too. It is this considered national position that delegations will be taking to Geneva:


So, NBs need to do their homework so that delegations arriving at the BRM in Geneva are fully briefed. The delegation should ideally know their national position on all 1,000 or so distinct comment/responses that could be discussed. It is the responsibility of the delegation to faithfully represent their national position (not individual divergent delegate views), and to be prepared to respond to any fresh issues that arise in line with guidance their NB has given them.

1,000 responses in 35 hours?

Given the five day time limit of the BRM, a frequently asked question is: how can 1,000 issues be addressed in the time, even if NBs already know what their position is? The answer, I think, must lie in paper voting. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of meeting resolutions will be decided by voting (as allowed for by the JTC 1 Directives), and delegations will be given lengthy voting papers allowing them to approve, abstain, or disapprove for any proposed resolution. The voting papers are likely to have three kinds of proposed resolution listed on them:

• Verbatim responses from Ecma's proposed disposition of comments (as contained in the document published by SC 34 as N 980)
• Ecma responses that have been amended by the BRM
• Fresh responses arising from BRM discussion

for the latter two types, consensus might well be reached during in-session discussion, in which case there is obviously no need to put the proposed resolution to the additional test of a redundant vote.

In ISO (and as adopted by JTC 1), the word “consensus” has a specific meaning:


Different meeting chairs take different approaches to determining consensus. In general, if the existence of consensus is not beyond doubt on any issue at the BRM, it will be deferred to paper balloting alongside the undiscussed issues.

Now, paper balloting follows normal JTC 1 in-meeting rules:


Tied votes will be assumed not to have passed (unless they get the “further discussion” the Directives require during the BRM, which is unlikely).

Some commentators have been suggesting the BRM will be some kind of biased pro-OOXML love in, but this is laughably wide of the mark. As I have blogged before, a clear majority of delegations are from countries that either disapproved or abstained in the September letter ballot; taking P-members alone, this is even more so, with over two thirds of delegations being such non-approvers. This will be no love-in: I am expecting some hard work and high-quality technical discussion!