The Open XML Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) Was An Unqualified Success

  • [アーティクル]

The DIS 29500 ballot resolution meeting (BRM) finished up in Geneva today and was an unqualified success by any measure. A few things need to be kept top of mind as national bodies solidify their position within the next 30 days:

A BRM is about technical work on the remaining open issues most important to participating national standards bodies

  • Many issues raised by national bodies can be addressed in advance of the BRM through the proposed dispositions of the submitting organization and, in some cases, discussions between the national bodies and the submitter.  This happened with Open XML, where national bodies identified many issues that were addressed to their satisfaction before the BRM started.
  • The BRM is an opportunity to discuss the remaining issues of importance to national bodies. 
  • The convener, Alex Brown, with the help of ISO/IEC and SC34 officers, ran a very successful BRM.
  • During the meeting, each delegation was given the opportunity to identify those issues most important to them thus defining the scope of work for the BRM. The BRM focused on building consensus on significant remaining technical issues and, in many cases, resulted in modifications to the proposed dispositions to refine and improve them.
  • By the end of the BRM, national bodies were able to consider for their approval each proposed disposition.  The vast majority of those proposed dispositions were adopted, resulting in a better specification that will better meet the interests of national bodies and the broader community.

Extensive steps were taken within the last year to improve Open XML through work with national standards bodies (and their participants) within the inclusive framework of ISO/IEC processes.

  • The Project Editor and Ecma TC-45 reached out to NSBs for ongoing input to the disposition process. Their valuable input was influential in the generation of the dispositions and that is why such overwhelmingly positive consensus was achieved during the BRM.
  • Conference calls, meetings, progress reports, early postings of dispositions, the full report on Jan 14...all of this was done as the groundwork for the BRM. And this was on top of the preceding 7 months of extensive technical engagement by the working groups and committees within the NSBs. Because of this, there were no "surprise" issue to be dealt with. And without question, the specification was improved based on the diligent feedback of NSBs from around the world.

A BRM is successful if it produces technical improvements to the specification to address comments raised during the ballot phase.

  • There were no “surprises” or "new comments" during this process. Every issue addressed was the result of the past 2+ years of work on the specification, and in particular the past 5 months of intensive work leading into the BRM.
  • During the course of the meeting, much effort was put forward in order to come to consensus on those issues that were the most heavily discussed over the duration of the past year.  The types of issues discussed during the BRM are represented here. 
  • The changes adopted (and denied) were based on consensus among all National Bodies. This is exactly how BRMs are meant to function. I'll say it again - by any rational measure of ISO/IEC JTC 1 ballot resolution meetings, this one was a complete success.

ISO/IEC standards are not only technically sound, but they should also be relevant to the marketplace.

  • DIS 29500, as improved through the rigorous review of the past year and the decisions made by delegations during the BRM, is a specification that meets both bars of technical quality and marketplace relevance.
  • Independent implementations of the specification are already available on most major operating systems platforms and in hundreds of applications. The statement that Open XML is about a single vendor is specious and empirically false.
  • Open XML has brought more attention to, and interest in, international standardization than any specification in the history of the ICT industry. The reason for this is simple - greater openness in all document formats (not just Open XML) is a good thing for everyone. There is general recognition that there will be broad adoption of this format around the world. Open XML delivers on that promise and is part of the rich ecosystem of open document formats that are driving this issue forward.
  • At the end of the day, customers should be able to choose the format(s) that best meet their needs and should not be told which technology to use.  Open XML, as improved through the hard work of national bodies over the past year, is an attractive alternative for them.

There was an unprecedented number of delegations from national standards bodies that came to Geneva and participated in the BRM. I have the utmost respect for the contributions from all of the national bodies (P-members and O-members alike). The result of this week's discussions, by any reasonable measure, has greatly improved the specification and produced a great result. The BRM was a complete success - congratulations to all who were involved with it.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    PingBack from http://osrin.net/2008/03/01/that-was-the-brm-that-was/

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    Carlos - at this point, this isn't public information. ISO has rules concerning the confidentiality of their proceedings, so that will be up to them as to how they do that. Obviously the project editor will be working furiously to update the specification as per the BRM conclusions, but that is a separate matter. I'm not sure how each delegation will deal with the flow of information. I'm sure more specific information will be coming out shortly. THx Jason

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The Ballot Resolution Meeting for DIS 29500 (Open XML) has concluded on a very positive note. I hear

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The Ballot Resolution Meeting for DIS 29500 (Open XML) has concluded on a very positive note. I hear

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    "The fact that wiki technology was invented, or blogs, or any other form of instant communication is not germane to the process. If, over time, the leadership of JTC 1 wants to consider changes to the process, then it may well become more "open" in the way you seem to be defining it." please, you compose ISO ( i'm a poor final user  [ and sometimes victim ] of standards ) , so please explain to "the leadership of JTC1" the following words: "transparency" "openness" "quality" "consensus" "technical merits of fast-tracked standards" ( i'm assuming that you and your employer know its true meaning ) To begin with, you can point the "JTC1 leadership" an example of  balance between standardization work and transparent process: http://www.xmlopen.org/ooxml-wiki/index.php/Main_Page The closed dark ages ( monastery work ) are gone. Welcome to the open age. What are your fears[1]?  Carlos [1]  http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200705/2007May18-073652.eml

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    "Carlos. Take a moment to consider that any specification going through the BRM process is subject to the same rules" Jason, you seem to don't understand what i'm saying. I'm saying that you, members of ISO, start changing this closed nature of the standardization process, for the benefit of final users.   If, for example, nine O-members who never participated in document and descripcion languages activities suddenly ask ISO/JTC1 to be upgraded to P-member status, prior to an important ballot voting, I, as a final user who will be affected by ISO deliverables, want to know that, so i can judge how "fear" was the process that put an ISO stamp on  that standard. What do you want, that i should send a letter to JTC1 leadership to ask this? you , the corporations, are who have the power to change this things, if you really want to make it. Or may be is like the European Commission said recently: "Talk is cheap"

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    I understand that the BRM only had a mandate to consider responses to the previous ballot, so the lack of new comments during the meeting was simply a result of the process in action.  If my understanding is correct, then I believe that pointing to a lack of "surprises" or "new comments" as an indication that the meeting was a success isn't a strong argument.   I found your enthusiastic and emotional terminology that you used in the posting a little off-putting, including some cases where you were writing an opinion but the entry sounded like you were speaking on behalf of all: "unqualified success", "valuable input", "overwhelmingly positive consensus", "without question", "changes ... based on consensus ... is exactly how BRMs are meant to function", "by any rational measure... this one was a complete success", "rigorous review", "rich ecosystem", "diligent feedback".   A couple more impressions:

  1. You seem to point to the significant effort that has been expended on improving this specification as a strong indicator that the result is very worthy.  I am not comfortable that this impression is justified -- I believe that this speaks more about the specification's past than it does speak about its current state.  
  2. My belief is that a standard should be seen as a contract brokered between parties, whereas I get the sense that you view this standard more as a gift for the wider community to consider accepting.   I'm having some trouble in explaining my low-level disquiet at the very positive tone of your posting which is at odds with some of the other post-meeting comments I've seen; the nearest I can get to describing it is to point to the cliche that "a good negotiated agreement is often one where nobody comes out happy".  I apologise that I can't describe my position any more clearly.  

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    Hi Jason, is that really your writing style? Sorry but this entry (like many others) reads like a press release, and I think that is part of the reason why you get such harsh reactions in the comments. People know press releases are pure spin. Let's take this entry as example: According to it, the BRM was the best thing since sliced bread. Very productive, all issues were addressed, couldn't have gone better (obviously, since you didn't mention a single, tiny negative thing about it). Tim Bray, who you caracterize as "very bright and capable", paints a different picture. Yes, people were genuinely trying to improve the spec. Good technical discussions. But the process was completely inadequate for a spec of this size with this many problems, and there were no deliberations whatsoever on the vast majority of issues. See http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/02/29/BRM-narrative Now I understand that it can be hard to write an even-handed blog entry, especially if your employer is the one responsible for fast-tracking OOXML. But this is no excuse for publishing PR propaganda on a blog supposedly written by a "normal" person. It's degrading to your audience. Just look at ex-Softie Robert Scoble on how to do it right. There is a reason he is respected in certain circles where other Microsofties (wink, wink) aren't. Cheers, Stephan

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    An update: I've just read the OpenMalaysia blog, and while they are certainly pro-ODF, I believe them when they say they worked honestly and diligently to improve OOXML to the best of their abilities. Read their "Geneva, Day Five" post - http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/geneva-day-five.html - it's a description of a process so broken and corrupt that it can't possibly be taken seriously. The statement "We eventually found out that if any changes affected current implementations it would certainly be rejected" left me aghast ("current implementations", in this context, certainly meaning MS Office 2007, and no other). Jason, if you want to refute this, please provide something substantive rather than the hallelujah hand-waving that the rest of your replies to this thread have been.

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    February 29, 2008
    Hey Carlos - Why didn't you, IBM, the FSF, Google and Updegrove not have any issues with the ISO process when ODF went through ISO?  Just curious?

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Hey Jason - Tim Bray has gone out of his way to recuse himself from outside influences and to act fairly. He has previously distanced himself from extremism and has been willing to be critical of ODF. He spent the last week at your BRM without blogging and without discussing the BRM with his colleagues. Your dismissal of his opinion is hugely unfair, especially given his long experience of the standards process (longer, I suspect, than yours). You say "by any measure". I gather the vast majority of the open issues were voted "en masse" without being considered due to lack of time. Is that part of the success you're claiming?

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Jason Matusow said "The DIS 29500 ballot resolution meeting (BRM) finished up in Geneva today and was an unqualified success by any measure." Jason, do you believe that the following numbers ( abstention + no vote + refusal to vote totals ) represent an "unqualified success by any measure" ? Please explain, thank you ( to the casual reader:  if you don't believe this numbers, demand ISO to disclose this numbers and check yourself ) Country         abst+no+refusal   Percentage -----------     ---------------   ----------- China                     1027    100.00% Ireland                   1027    100.00% Ecuador                   1027    100.00% Netherland                1027    100.00% Mexico                    1027    100.00% Malaysia                  1022     99.51% Korea (s)                 1021     99.42% New Zealand               1018     99.12% Australia                 1008     98.15% India                     1005     97.86% Italy                      995     96.88% Belgium                    986     96.01% Israel                     983     95.72% Kenya                      970     94.45% US                         966     94.06% France                     965     93.96% Greece                     963     93.77% Portugal                   935     91.04% Japan                      934     90.94% Denmark                    912     88.80% Canada                     886     86.27% South Africa               875     85.20% Denmark                    871     84.81% Brazil                     573     55.79% Switzerland                349     33.98% UK                         187     18.21% Czech                        7     0.68% Finland                      6     0.58% Poland (O member)            4     0.39% Chile (O member)             1     0.10% Ivory Coast (MS HOD)()      0     0.00% NO (MS HOD)                  0     0.00% () http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-43510/ivory-coast-represented-by-microsoft-senegal-at-the-brm

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Jason- Were you at the same BRM where they discussed that file format? The one in Geneva ... ... Switzerland?

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Guys - it is Saturday morning and I have a bunch of family things to do with my kids. I will get back to do comments later in the day. For a few of you who are taking Andy's numbers as gosple. I would point out the following comment that was left by the BRM convener. As for all the other numbers posted here - I simply can't say until I see the numbers from ISO. That would be the whole respecting of the confidentiality rules thing... On Andy's blog (http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319727) Showdown in Geneva: OOXML Fails to Achieve Majority Approval at BRM Authored by: Alex Brown on Saturday, March 01 2008 @ 03:59 AM PST Andy, I'm won't be composing a blog entry on the BRM for a bit, but I wil point out that your article contains surprising inaccuracies about what the subject of the vote was, how it worked, and what the governing rules were. A health warning is in order.

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Jason, about Andy's numbers :

  • it is not a matter of gospel, but they are currently the only ones available.  I would be delighted to read your figures, so we would have two "gospels" to think about.
  • please note that Alex Brown comments on the subject and rules for the vote, but doesn't comment about the resulting numbers.
  • "I simply can't say until I see the numbers from ISO": does that mean that you have see no figures yet ?  If this is the case, how can you announce that the BRM was a complete success ?

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Dan nails it.

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    To Tim Bray's credit, he's added a post that calls out the blatant spin and disregard for the truth:- "I thought I was sufficiently jaded and cynical that not much in this business could surprise me. Even given that, I’m flabbergasted at the degree of spin, no, make that bald-faced lying, in coverage of the just-finished BRM. The contempt for truth is sickening, and some people ought to be ashamed of themselves. Check it out if you’ve got a strong stomach." http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/03/01/Spin I think Tim's post poured fuel on the fire, but I am pleased to see him call out the nonsense. I wonder if Andy will do the same?

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    hAl...how can you view the news that China didn't vote to approve any of the propositions to mean that it approved more than 90%? Japan, that is number 19 on the list did approve 9.06% and abst+no+refusal on 90.94% of them.

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Fiery and hAL - I still think that you should be very careful with marc's numbers above. Are those the right numbers? Marc - would you be willing to tell us where you go those? I'll wait for the official ISO results, thanks. Jason

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Hello, Jason. I'm just an observer in all this, without any technical background. I don't consider myself anti-OOXML; if the standard is truly open and not unduly influenced by any single entity, I see in principle no reason to object. That being said, I have a couple of questions. I understand that you're invoking ISO confidentiality to put off talking about, e.g., Andy's numbers. But surely general comments, without mentioning specifics of who voted for what, wouldn't touch upon confidentialities. Do you think Andy's numbers bear any resemblance to reality? It would seem that any answer less than an unqualified "No!" is tantemount to an admission that there is significant opposition to approving OOXML in its current state. To "p" you said: "There is nothing about our work on Open XML that in ANY WAY damages ODF. ... That does not mean that we won't compete with our products." Since the ISO already has an open document standard, what is MS' rationale for expending huge resources in pushing for a second? If MS has technical objections to ODF, certainly it would be easier to fix a broken standard than try to develop a new one from scratch. Since it's difficult to believe that Microsoft has suddenly got open standards religion after decades of holding its .DOC standard so close to it's chest, what is MS' business rationale for seeking a separate-but-equal standard? As to "damaging ODF", I think your reply is a bit disingenuous. Given MS' near-monopoly in the office space, if OOXML is approved and MS Office continues to withhold support for ODF, ODF's ability to compete is significantly damaged. Redmond is well aware of this. Finally, what is your objective assessment of OOXML's chances for approval this year? CJ

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    Mr. Jason, I was at the BRM and you are completely misleading everyone. You are a marketing guy with ZERO technical credibility to post this blog.

  • Anonymous
    March 01, 2008
    marc's numbers are meaningless (or at least, if they reflect anything significant about the vote I can't fathom what it is!)

  • Alex.

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    forgetting all the numbers, how come your perspective of "unqualified success" is diametrically opposed to the view of everyone not employed by Microsoft?

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    "We have never stood against ODF. " Do you really beliefe that people are so stupid not to see why MS tries so desperately to have its "own" document standard? "If you believe in consumer choice as the best option" LOL MS believes in consumers choice as long as everybody buy's their software. So where's the format choice with MS Office? Standards are useless if everbody is cooking his own. You know that exactly. If you believe in competition: let's see what happends when MS Office uses ODF as it's primary format and kills OOXML. Then, you'll have consumer choice. But MS would not like such a future, would it? The MS Office cash cow gone all of a sudden .. "I also believe that if you limit the world to a single document format you are creating an innovation dead-zone that is unhealthy for everyone" That's absurd. Why on earth do you believe having more than one standard for a data exchange format bring any competition to the table? A standard is fixed. Being fixed is it's primary value. There is not only no need for competition, it's harmful. I wouldn't call the internet an "innovation dead-zone" just because there are single HTTP/HTML/etc. standards. Quite the opposite: Innovation was possible because there was a fixed data exchange format / protocol that was not going to change year after year. So everybody could build innovation on that basis and be sure that his investment was protected. What is really annyoing is the hypocrisis of Microsoft; All the talks about standards, openness and competition when they really only try to bind customers to their own software and services by cooking  their own format soup. Sad.

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    I'm just curious... Why isn't Microsoft pouring million$ they must be spending on getting their "100% compatible" and "Open" OOXML ratified, when they really should be spending it on getting their own Office 2007 software to be "100% Compatible" with previous Office versions, not to mention the billions and billions of files still in the 97-2003 formats? My company hasn't even been discouraged by the productivity hits our users might experience because of the new ribbon. We even bought into the inflated SharePoint 2007 & Office SharePoint Services  promises.     Unfortunately, that was before we discovered SO MANY compatibility tool BUGS and content compatibility PROBLEMS between Office versions that we can't even begin to THINK about migrating to Office 2007!   See details on Office 2007 compatibility issues here:  http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfmtw2th_82cwpr7phn So what if, by some miracle, OOXML gets ratified as an ISO standard.  Then what?  What does that do for your customers who CAN'T MIGRATE TO OFFICE 2007 BECAUSE IT IS TOO FULL OF COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS????   Won't that leave Microsoft with a shiny new ISO standard that very few people can even use, because your own software designed to use it is TOO INCOMPATIBLE TO MIGRATE TO??? It seems to me, that if Microsoft would simply focus on getting their Office 2007 product working the way it should (and the way they've advertised that it should), and make it a lot less painful to migrate to it, that OOXML would simply become the de-facto standard... just like the old 97-2003 formats.

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    (Was previously "recherche" (thanks for the compliment), but this name change seems appropriate.)   Interesting that you mention PDF.  I note that Microsoft is in the process of getting XPS (XML Paper Specification) through the ECMA treatment in order to propose it as an ISO standard.  If XPS is to PDF as OOXML is to ODF (and I acknowledge that both the direct comparison between XPS and PDF may be misleading to some extent, and also that mapping this pair across to OOXML/ODF may be misleading to some extent), then a look at how "open" XPS is is not entirely comforting:

  • As of 1 July 2007, devices advertising "Certified for Windows Vista" are required to have XPS drivers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Paper_Specification

  • The XPS Print Schema License is not compatible with the GPL, so the freedoms granted to users are limited and downstream parties may need to deal with Microsoft directly to access Microsoft Intellectual Property: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/printschemalicense.mspx

  • XPS handles fonts differently from PDF, mainly as a result of its requiring that fonts be embedded, or else the text must be rasterised.  This seems to make PDF less attractive than XPS in some situations: http://blogs.msdn.com/adrianford/archive/2007/09/20/printing-fonts-and-stuff-of-a-related-nature.aspx

  • As an aside on fonts, I note that all fonts used in Vista are owned by Microsoft, and "individuals, graphic designers and businesses" may purchase licenses to use them from Ascender Corporation: http://www.ascendercorp.com/ctfonts.html .  

  • Also on the font front, I note that the EU ruled that the font Segoe registered by Microsoft as Design Patent US D496,392 S as a forgery of a Linotype GmbH font.  "A registered design is protected for a maximum period of 25 years, in 5-year chunks...".  http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/segoe.pdf How "open" is a user's font choices under Vista and Office 2007?  If a user has preferences or requirements in font selections for various documents, how do the applications deal with this desired freedom of expression?   I notice that Microsoft is "committed to delivering [XPS] viewers for Windows Vista and downlevel versions of Windows [...] and directly or through partners, for a range of other platforms."  I note that Windows Vista comes with XPS Viewer installed by default, and that Windows XP users can download a Pack to enable Internet Explorer to serve as an XPS viewer.  Are there XPS Viewers available for any other operating system?  Is there any commitment, preferably including a delivery schedule, for the provision of XPS viewers for any currently-unsupported OS?  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/xps.mspx Looking as a non-member of the Microsoft product ecosystem, I believe that choosing XPS over PDF would compromise my flexibility in downstream choices, and so evaluating the costs and benefits of any such choice would be a non-trivial exercise.   Given these concerns regarding XPS versus PDF, I believe that there is some similarity between this situation and the Microsoft-ecosystem concerns that some parties have expressed when evaluating the risks and benefits of OOXML versus ODF.   This has been a rather long and rambling comment, and I accept that you may not agree with some or all of my premises or conclusions, and I respect your opinions.   recidivist/recherche (and already starting to search the dictionary for the next compatible moniker in the namespace-o-sphere...)

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    Luc, "- 900-ish dispositions decided without any discussion in 1 single bulk vote on Friday" It was not a bulk-vote in the traditional sense. I have explained in more detail on my blog at http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/03/BRM-aftermath.aspx From this: [...]The BRM chose to do something. We didn’t all agree to what to do and as it has been reported all over the blog-sphere, most parts of a whole day was spent discussing what to do. I think most of the delegates disliked the position we were put in – but regardless of this we were in this situation whether we liked it or not. We had to do something. That “something” was to do a vote on each of the remaining responses from ECMA. It was not a bulk-vote as reported on various sites – it was a vote on each and every single response. [...]

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    I know the discussion here is over by now, but I wanted to respond anyway (I was away for the weekend). Jason, I agree that Mr. Updegrove's blog entries are often as full of spin as are yours (sorry). I don't consider them "better" just because he happens to be pro-ODF. On the other hand, I highly value Rob Weir's blog. I'm a software developer, and what he writes just makes sense. He wins about every technical argument, and when people like Brian Jones try to answer/rebut him they just don't do as good a job as him. He clearly has the technical facts on his side. But I do realize that is very hard to judge for a non-technical person. His latest entry is an eye-opener. It seems to be an accurate report from the BRM, and the best one I have read so far. It echoes what Tim Bray has written. Two first-hand accounts from people with indisputable technical knowledge and experience. And unlike what you and Brian wrote, their reports make sense. How can you work on more than 1,000 comments in one week? Of course you cannot. Every report that says otherwise has to be spin, has to be propaganda. They were able to work on about 200 comments in one week, and that sounds like a reasonable number. The other 800 were never discussed. The process has failed.

  • Anonymous
    March 02, 2008
    "Alan - maybe you missed the fact that is not the case even in the comments on this list? Also, that one of the commenters who has expressed concern with the way those opposed to the DIS are portraying things is the convener of the BRM himself?" Jason, please see the comment left by the same "Alex Brown" ( if he really is THE Alex Brown anyway) on Tim Bray's blog. Tell you what I'll show it to you here just in case you miss it: Regarding Tim's "Toxic Leech" blog post, Alex Brown writes: "From: Alex Brown (Mar 01 2008, at 08:40) Tim hi I suspect none of the perpetrators will think you mean them; they'll think you mean the "other side". Congratulations on having written the only accurate, neutral and informative blog entry on the BRM in existence so far (though on the bullshitty-ness of the Fast Track process, I can of course offer no comment)

  • Alex."

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    Stephen said "Microsoft stands against one sided procurement preferences." You mean except when those preferences mean that MSFT gets all of the business? lol Seriously Stephen. Your company's practices which serve to disrupt a fair procurement process are well documented.

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    Ecma International released its comments on the BRM. The Ballot Resolution Meeting was a very productive

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    Ecma International released its comments on the BRM. The Ballot Resolution Meeting was a very productive

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    "those same organizations were of the opinion that because their technology was first to ISO standardization it should become mandated by legislation for government procurement." Perhaps they were motivated to try get it mandated not because it was first, but because it makes sense to mandate a single open standard format for public information content.  Having any more than one standard just causes problems.  Everyone is free to use (and help improve) the single standard (ODF) format.  Including Microsoft. I think a rational use of the United State's economic resources was also a motivation here - there is a community made of members from many companies that helped create and support ODF.  The proposal was to require the government to use one standard open document format, so that public data is not held captive by a single software company and that use of public documents does not have to be done by using a specific company's software.  It makes no sense having two standards because nobody is excluded from using the first.  And having two dilutes the benefits of having a standard at all.  Microsoft was a member in the ODF standards group - it's not like this format came out of the blue at you!  Why ODF and not MOOXML?  Several good reasons:  timing (only one is ISO standard right now), technical merit, and current multi-vendor support of ODF (which proves it is a good standard). "If you believe in consumer choice as the best option, then you would vote in favor of your competitors specification. That is what Microsoft has done." First of all, why does Microsoft look at ODF as the 'competitors' format?  Why not just consider it the open format, support it, help it grow and mature, like many other companies are doing,  and do something positive for the world? Secondly, you are hurting the customer by proposing a second standard format because implementors of software will have to choose between the two (or spend a lot more money doing the same thing two different ways).  Either option hurts the customer: more incompatibilities (two types of documents in the enterprise/government/home files), and higher prices (more development/testing effort because of the redundant work of supporting two formats. If you asked them, you would find that customers would prefer to have one format, and a choice of many applications from many competing companies.  That is the choice that you are denying them by 'giving' them the choice of formats.  Why don't you ask them if they would prefer two formats, and the incompatibilities that will result in,or one format, which is already supported by a number of top-notch word processing and other applications supported by a number of companies?   Thirdly, despite what you say, Microsoft is voting with its feet (and software support) against ODF.   The MOOXML format is, according to many technical reviews, much more complicated compared to ODF.  That would probably not even make it a good candidate as the open document standard even if there was not one already.  And by not making ODF the default save format in your apps, you are voting against it. And finally, based on your response to P, it does not seem like consumer choice is your primary concern, revenue generation is.   Well, thanks for being honest about it, but not all companies have the same guiding principle as Microsoft (I mean greed here, not honesty). So looking at this with vendor lock-in profit margins as your base motive......I guess it is time to bring up the M word.  Monopolies that do what Microsoft continues to do have been broken up in the past.  You are just in a field that not many people (or judges) understand, and so as an expert you can lie and get away with it.  And software is difficult to get right even when you are trying, so when making things incompatible is a goal you don't have to do too much to achieve it.  That might benefit your shareholders in the short term, but the past history of monopolies proves it is not the right model for the long-term stock holders, or any of the customers at any time. So how about this:  stop the FUD machine and do the right thing - drop MOOXML and join the team, the rest of the world, on ODF.  If you can produce the best software that uses the format then you have nothing to worry about.  You will get paid.   But if you don't, take notice:  the consumer is tired of incompatibilities, and the consumer is getting smarter.  Incompatibilities are like tolls on the roads.  They waste resources, energy and time that would be better spent simply moving forward.  Having two formats just sends us again down the toll road of incompatibilities.  You could get away with using incompatibilities between versions in the past.  Those days are over.  We all now know that it is possible to standardize a format to allow many different applications to share data.  So there is no need to break compatibility simply because you are upgrading to a new version of the same software.  Everybody knows it is easy to do if you are guided by the right principles.

  • Anonymous
    March 03, 2008
    @John G: very wise and well thought post. I'm sure the Microsoft managers, who are clever guys, know this, but they are too busy maximising short term profit to act accordingly...  (sigh).

  • Anonymous
    March 04, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 04, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 04, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 11, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    April 01, 2008
    Jason, MS could be a good corporate citizen. Instead, we see absolutely obvious corruption of the ISO process. I understand that you are paid to put a face on a faceless entity. So, you sold your soul for how much again?