Format Standards Committee "Grinds To a Halt"

Andy Updegrove writes "Microsoft's OOXML did not get enough votes to be approved the first time around in ISO/IEC — notwithstanding the fact that many countries joined the Document Format and Languages committee in the months before voting closed, almost all of them voting to approve OOXML. Unfortunately, many of these countries also traded up to 'P' level membership at the last minute to gain more influence. Now the collateral damage is setting in. At least 50% of P members must vote (up, down, or abstain) on every standard at each ballot — and none of the new members are bothering to vote, despite repeated pleas from the committee chair. Not a single ballot has passed since the OOXML vote closed. In the chairman's words, the committee has 'ground to a halt.' Sad to say, there's no end in sight for this (formerly) very busy and influential standards committee."

Comments

In absentia

[homey of my owney]

We declare everyone who doesn't vote, to be here-by removed.

Re:In absentia

[gurps_npc]

Declare everyone that did not vote to be hereby removed AND forbidden from upgrading to P class within a period of 5 years.

Re:In absentia

[FuzzyDaddy]

We declare everyone who doesn't vote, to be here-by removed.

Failed due to lack of 50% participation of "P" members...

Re:In absentia

[Lisias]

It's not enough.

This kind of abuse happens because it's profittable to someone. Make it so expensive to abuse that no one will think in abusing the system anymore. At least, for profit...

Some societies ask a good money to admission for a reason. This is one of them.

Re:In absentia

[ShieldW0lf]

If your agenda is to make statements as a unified body, you can't do that. It would be like if the US kicked everyone out of the UN except them, then claimed to have unanimous global support for their war of terror. It just doesn't work.

Someone needs to put a bullet in those people over at Microsoft.

Re:In absentia

[Bert64]

Unfortunately, the amount microsoft stand to gain by subverting the standards process (and thus maintaining their market share for longer) is massively more than virtually any other single company would ever be willing to invest in the standards process.

Re:In absentia

[davester666]

The vote on OOXML is probably the single most important thing these countries will ever vote on. Everything else is so less important, as to be not even worth opening an email about other things, let alone voting on them. And by most important, I mean, being given the most amount of money by a company to vote a specific way w.r.t. an issue.

Re:In absentia

[mabhatter654]

You could quietly change the enrollment rules and "forget" to mail the rules out to them before the deadline (or post them in a celler) These guys won't remember to re-enroll when their term is up and you can winnow them out then. Just make sure any applications get "lost" if they don't show up to meetings. Then put some procedural rules into effect once the numbers are back down to keep this from happening again.

Re:In absentia

[belmolis]

It is quite common for the boards of non-profit organizations to have a provision in their bylaws that allows the rest of the board to remove any member who doesn't turn up for a certain number of meetings as well as a provision that lets any member force a meeting in which anyone who turns up constitutes a quorum under certain circumstances. That isn't undemocratic - it just prevents a few members from locking up the organization. I've had to use such provisions with an organization I was involved in. After several failed attempts to get a quorum, we forced one more meeting to be called. When it was one short of a quorum, we invoked the provision that let us call another meeting immediately with those present constituting a quorum. We then removed two board members who had failed repeatedly to turn up and passed the by-law change (announced two weeks in advance as required for such changes) that lowered the ridiculously high quorum requirement. This reactivated a frozen organization.

Re:In absentia

[rustalot42684]

RTFP:

everyone that did not vote The countries in the UN vote. Ergo, your simile is invalid.

Re:In absentia

[RealGrouchy]

Declare everyone that did not vote to be hereby removed AND forbidden from upgrading to P class within a period of 5 years. Catch-22: In order to establish this rule, you'll need a good quorum of members to vote (a majority of them in favour).

- RG>

Re:In absentia

[petermgreen]

the problem is you probablly need the approval of those who aren't showing up right now to change the rules.

Re:In absentia

[nomadic]

We declare everyone who doesn't vote, to be here-by removed.

Seconded. Let's vote on your proposal now.

Oops, we didn't get 50% of the members voted. Another proposal fails to pass.

Re:In absentia

[Lisias]

Of course.

But since every paid enlister will have just one shot, the price will be very high.

The point is not to prevent Microsoft to spend its money (it's impossible, as you pointed out). It's to prevent Microsoft to get a good profit on it.

Re:In absentia

[GnarlyDoug]

I have no idea why you are rated as Funny and not Insightful for your comment. It's the unvarnished truth. Since their bylaws didn't account for hostile action, they're screwed.

Re:In absentia

[1u3hr]

We declare everyone who doesn't vote, to be here-by removed.

And how will you get a quorum to pass this motion?

Re:In absentia

[Anonymous Coward]

Or dissolve the defunct committee, create a new one and invite all current committee members to apply. The people who actually don't care about standards will fail to apply. Case closed.

What ever happened to fair play? Whatever happened to principled behavior? I don't think even Microsoft-- well, their lawyers at least-- wants a law-of-the-jungle business environment.

Re:In absentia

[The Great Pretender]

Unfortunately, they need the non-voters to vote to pass the resolution to remove the non-voters

Re:In absentia

[dwater]

Well, how about getting more members - some who will actually turn up to vote - so that the one who don't turn up constitute less than 50%.

Re:In absentia

[Bert64]

But if you make it expensive for microsoft, you push it out of the reach of most other organizations.
What you really need is a fair and balanced approach (As if this would ever happen!) where....

Anyone voting has to justify their vote regardless of which way they vote and demonstrate a sufficient level of competence in the field to which the standard applies when doing so. If they vote yes, they should address any negative points which were raised during pre-vote meetings and justify why they are insufficient to warrant a no vote.
There are clear rules about new standards, ie the published standard must fully document them, they must not duplicate other standards (reuse and extend if necessary, but be required to justify the extension)...
And standards shouldn't be proposed by a single company and fed through the process, they should be developed jointly between any party who has a valid interest in the area and who wishes to join the process. Any proposed standards developed via a closed process should be immediately rejected, as they are usually designed for the sole benefit of one party, contrary to the purpose of standards.

Re:In absentia

[ta bu shi da yu]

I disagree. The issue here is that many people signed up for only one reason: to push through a dodgy standard. You can't compare this to the U.S. voting to kick everyone out, then making a claim that they have unanimous support for their War on Terror (tm).

The difference? If the U.S. did this with the U.N. then countries would respond - volubly. With this standards process, the committee can state that those who don't participate in the discussions have a limited time frame with which to participate. If they don't, then they cancel their membership.

This is actually the only solution that I can think of that would solve this impasse. It also has the happy side-effect of actually strengthening the standards process, as the more people who respond the better the standard becomes.

Re:In absentia

[Anonymous Coward]

ahhhh... if we could only apply the same fix to the US Congress. Hell, why not citizens, too?

Re:In absentia

[Z00L00K]

If your agenda is to make statements as a unified body, you can't do that. It would be like if the US kicked everyone out of the UN except them, then claimed to have unanimous global support for their war of terror. It just doesn't work.

It's not really the same thing - if a representative doesn't show up for a number of votes that representative has voided his/her rights to vote - it's not like another representative is kicking them out.

Anyway - this makes it really clear that it was an attempt by Microsoft to buy a standard because it wasn't good enough in it self on technical merits. I wonder if the RICO acts can be applied to this whole affair?

In all - it has revealed a weakness in the standardization organizations in general, and it's time for them to rebuild their structure and public trust. Failure to do so will devalue the ISO standards as a whole.

Re:In absentia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just have "special" meetings all the time that set a quorum by those in attendance? Seems like this would get rid of the hassle of not inviting those you do not like in an organization. For instance, call a "special" meeting where no one else can make it and have a one man quorum and rewrite the rules.

I do not know of one organization that works in this manner and I have been part of many organizations that require quorums to pass votes. Do you think Congress or a Parliament should work in this manner? Why not?

Re:In absentia

[osu-neko]

That isn't undemocratic

You mean it isn't necessarily undemocratic. It all depends on how the rule is used.

Re:In absentia

[Anonymous Coward]

Mayby interesting that in april 2006 out of only a total of 10 P-member 8 members voted on a ballot
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0726.htm

But a month later in may 2006 a total of 25 our of 27 p-members voted on Opendocument.
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0728revc.htm
17 more p-members voting in a month ?

Most of those 17 member are also very prominently absent in activity on the example ballots that Andy Upgrove gives as example.

So are the 17 new p-members that entered for the Opendocument vote to blame or the 11 that entered before the OOXML vote ??

Re:In absentia

[Lisias]

You have a very good point, but unfortunatelly it's not applicable all the time.

Not everyone is thrustworthy all the time, you must take point on private affairs - where the best technical issue is not always the best solution. Yes, Microsoft is not the only one...

As much as I agree with you in theory, I still thinks a pragmatic approach is still needed: hit the "bad guys" where it hurts most, their pockets.

Eu reaction

[TheRealZeus]

nail m$ with conspiracy PLZPLZPLZ

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Emperor will just dissolve the Senate.

Were they fictional countries?

[Zantetsuken]

Were these counties all named things like Microsoft-land, Microsoft-world, Microsoftia and so on?

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[Kadin2048]

Were these counties all named things like Microsoft-land, Microsoft-world, Microsoftia and so on? No, but some of them were countries that probably had bigger issues than ODF versus OOXML, like say feeding themselves. It was pretty clear that some of them were in it for the cold, hard cash, and couldn't give a crap about what they were voting on.

Maybe they could make voting membership in a computer-standards committee contingent on having some sort of viable technology industry or something. (Of course, in a few decades that would probably knock out the United States, the way we're going...)

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, these places were all totally real: Fidalgo, Orcas, and Whidbey.

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[geekoid]

Don't confuse computers with techology. The US has HUGE technology base, and is innovating other technologies in greater volume then pretty much any other country.

What technology growth is help desk? hell. most software design isn't new ground or innovative.
Gee, we're going to use a pointer, look a linked list! whoop-dee-fucking-doo

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[n dot l]

Were these counties all named things like Microsoft-land, Microsoft-world, Microsoftia and so on? I protest this vile insult to the proud and ancient heritage of the Incorporated Republic of Microsoftia, you insensitive clod! Honestly, the ignorance of some people...look it up on a map some time, I mean it's right next to Robonia, for crying out loud!

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[Karellen]

No, but they do measure up as being very corrupt according to the CPI.

See in particular the previous /. article.

Of course, that could just be a complete coincidence. No, really.

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[dlanod]

Here's the list of the countries that didn't respond ("liberated" from a post above, given all information wants to be free):

• Bulgaria
• Brazil
• Switzerland
• Côte-d'Ivoire
• China
• Colombia
• Czech Republic
• France
• India
• Japan
• Kenya
• South Korea
• Kazakhstan
• Lebanon
• Malta
• Norway
• Pakistan
• Poland
• Romania
• Sweden
• Thailand
• Trinidad and Tobago

Which of those do you propose have problems "feeding themselves"? The only one I could really see that claim about is Côte-d'Ivoire, and that's more because of the civil war aftermath than any lack of food. Obviously the process was rorted, but it was done at the national standards organisations level - and it requires a certain base level of governance to have a national standards organisation.

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[stony3k]

Some of these countries like Brazil, China and India (off the top of my head) voted against OOXML. To me, this suggests that it was not just Microsoft that was gaming the system, but the other side as well (IBM, Sun). Or maybe there's another reason why these countries did not respond, which has nothing to do with Microsoft.

Re:Were they fictional countries?

[gplus]

While we're listing committee member countries. The recent P-members are these 11 (from TFA):

Malta, Venezuela, Pakistan, Poland, Egypt, Lebanon, New Zealand, South Africa, Romania, Sri Lanka and Chile.

So let me get this straight.

[syrion]

Allowing mercenary corporate entities to corrupt the standardization process has negative implications? I'm amazed. I never would have guessed that violating the spirit of the rules while abiding by the letter could lead to problems in the future. Nor would I have guessed that punitive/preventative measures would need to be drafted into those rules to prevent abuse.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Snotman]

What does the "spirit" of the rules mean? If the spirit cannot be reflected in language on paper, then it does not exist. How else can you communicate spirit if it is not reproducible and enforceable through words? By the way, I know what you mean by spirit. One other point, if it is decided that this means the process was broke, should ISO start over from prior to the OOXML vote? Does the acknowledgement that the process is broke warrant erasing the decision for the vote that exposed the broken process? Here is another kicker, what do you do about all the votes prior to the OOXML vote because they should be seen as compromised votes as I am sure this is not the first time someone has gamed ISO. Why should we believe that?

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Volante3192]

That's the problem with the tech inclined.

If we knew back when SMTP was created the trouble it would become, it would have been a much more rigorous protocol. DNS has required lots of security implimentations as well. In fact, pretty much any early net technology wasn't built with any safeguards in mind. Everyone was pretty much trustworthy.

Then the general public and businesses started using it and suddenly stupid things and evil things started happening. (Broad brush stroke, yea, but I'm summarizing.)

At one level, there's still a lot of naivety.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[syrion]

Yes, you're right. If the people who draft the rules write them poorly, then the loopholes will be exploited. It's more disgust that they left these loopholes; even that these loopholes might have been intentional on the part of some of the original drafters of the process. I hate committees.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Kadin2048]

At one level, there's still a lot of naivety. This is true. Naivete is surprisingly hard to kill; call them fools or optimists, but a lot of people seem to love to hold onto unrealistic expectations of others far beyond what is rational or predictable.

I think this is one of the main reasons why so much security policy is reactive rather than proactive. Nobody wants to be the person to call out everyone else for being potential criminals, even though everyone rationally knows that it's true.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[jandrese]

On the other hand, innocent people also don't like being punished just because everybody "knows" they're bad.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[xeromist]

Regarding the votes prior to OOXML? Nothing. It wouldn't work to invalidate them now because anything previously passed will have likely become defacto. Not to mention that it would be far too much work to comprehensively review everything up to this point.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[ozmanjusri]

I hate committees.

ISO committees are generally co-operative groups. It's unprecedented that any company game the system on this scale.

Microsoft shafted them.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Maxo-Texas]

Are You assuming that with sufficiently tightly written rules we can eliminate loopholes?

Usually, the more detailed the rules, the more subject they are to unstoppable abuse and/or being unenforcable.

Attitude is everything-- Basketball in the 70's was not the same as basketball today because of attitude towards the game. Good sportsmen are viewed as stupid today- and were admired back then.

When you have to start codifying things explicitly, you have probably lost what was good about the activity.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Maestro485]

The spirit of the rules has a lot to do with how those rules should be enforced. Think "extraordinary rendition" or the War on Drugs. Both are legal, but are they actually following the spirit of the rules?

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Eivind]

That's rational though. Being overly suspicious has significant opportunity-cost. If you go around assuming that everyone is always only out to get you, you miss out on a lot of opportunity. This loss is likely to in most cases be -bigger- than the loss incurred when, occasionally, someone is really out to get you.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[tbannist]

True, but it's also a bit disgraceful that they never saw something like this coming. Now that's it's happened once, they're going to need to reform the JCT rules to prevent it from happening again.

Have a purchasable level of membership that requires a majority of those members to vote yes on every matter of business just seems unbelievably ripe for exploitation.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[tbannist]

To some extent I agree with you, but on the flip side, I know that some rules are inherently more resistant to corruption than others. It's best to have a clear spirit of the rules, in addition to rules that are designed to resist corruption as best as possible.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[mpe]

Yes, you're right. If the people who draft the rules write them poorly, then the loopholes will be exploited. It's more disgust that they left these loopholes; even that these loopholes might have been intentional on the part of some of the original drafters of the process.

Most likely the quorum being half of voting members is a common set of rules for ISO groups. Apparently this has never been a problem in the past...

MSFT knew what they were doing

[DivineGod]

when they bought a lot of the votes. Either OOXML will be approved and the standards organization will continue its work or else no other standard will get processed.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Wrong. Even if OOXML was approved the standards committee would have ground to a halt anyway.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[jejones]

True... but that doesn't mean MS didn't want that outcome. Get your bogus "standard" approved, then have your lapdogs prevent anything else from progressing.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[DivineGod]

That's just an assumption on your part. We cannot say that it would. But most certainly it would. Though MS might have given instructions to the bought voters instructing them on what to do in case of a win. But all of this is of course purely speculations.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[Anonymous Coward]

OWNED.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but it is possible to fairly accurately speculate about Microsoft's future wrongdoings. All one need do is determine what will cause the most damage to Microsoft's competition, while simultaneously making it the most money. That's pretty much what Microsoft will do, like clockwork, because that is all that company knows how to do. The fact that so many organizations are continually blindsided by Microsoft just amazes me. It is no less remarkable that so many people actually admire Microsoft, along with its predatory and utterly uncharismatic leaders. You would think, after all these years, that Microsoft's reputation for rabbit-punching would precede it.

Some people never learn.

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ground to a halt except for rubber-stamping ECMA's rubber-stamps of Micorosfts "standards".

Re:MSFT knew what they were doing

[tbannist]

It's American Values:

1) Winning is everything.
2) Cheating is ok as long as you win.
3) Getting caught cheating is ok as long as you still win.
4) Cheating is wrong if you get caught and have to forfeit your victory.

Many people don't care that Microsoft is a predatory monopolist because 1) they're incredibly rich, and 2) they escaped their big anti-trust trial with an insignificant punishment. Many people love Microsoft simply because Microsoft wins. To them, by definition the most popular thing is always the best. Rich people are good people because they are successful. After all, God would only reward good people and always punishes the bad people. That's why, by definition, all poor people are lazy and evil.

Permanently

[khasim]

Buh bye sycophants.

I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[DragonWriter]

...of the MS efforts. Discrediting the standards process (and, by implication, the standards produced through it) is just as good, or better, for them then getting a spot as a second standard alongside ODF. If the standards bodies aren't credible, than the only "standard" that matters is "what's dominant in the marketplace today", and Microsoft has that locked up right now.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[juuri]

I doubt they have thought that far ahead. Given Microsoft's practices in things like this, they saw an easy, "legal", way to push forward a vote to benefit themselves. Whoever was tasked at Microsoft on making this vote worked exerted much effort to make sure these new members voted on this one issue. The paper stuffers probably were completely ignorant of what they were signing up for other than towing a line maybe with the promise of deep discounts or a "great licensing" deal waiting the in the wings.

Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly they lack foresight, which says a lot about how crappy the rest of the computing industry is, given their complete dominance of it.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[niko9]

...other than towing a line...

It's to toe the line. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[kripkenstein]

Yes, this was my thinking as well upon seeing the article. Discrediting the standard bodies is in Microsoft's favor. If collaboration, cooperation and democracy (essentially that is what international standards bodies implement) are shown to fail in IT, then a single entity to lead the market may seem more appealing.

But hopefully this will come back to bite them. Discrediting standard bodies may irritate some people in high places - although, presumably not in the US.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[juuri]

They were most definitely "towing" something here.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[grcumb]

If the standards bodies aren't credible, than the only "standard" that matters is "what's dominant in the marketplace today", and Microsoft has that locked up right now.

This tactic has been used in international negotiations in the past. A certain Last Remaining Superpower (who shall remain nameless) has done this with numerous international committees since about 2000. Even when they have no interest in the outcome of a given bit of work, they insist on joining the group and actively sabotaging it unless it meets their strategic priorities. It's not enough that it has nothing to do with them; unless these groups are actively supporting the Superpower's agenda, they are blocked and frustrated at the procedural level.

It's not inconceivable that MS would use such tactics. But given the circumstances, I'm inclined to say that if that's what they intended, they could have done it much better. Ultimately, though, even I have trouble believing they could have planned such an outcome.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[giminy]

...of the MS efforts. Discrediting the standards process (and, by implication, the standards produced through it) is just as good, or better, for them then getting a spot as a second standard alongside ODF. If the standards bodies aren't credible, than the only "standard" that matters is "what's dominant in the marketplace today", and Microsoft has that locked up right now.

Interesting theory.

I worked in .GOV research labs for a few years, my primary responsibility being evaluating computer security products for government acquisition. Both organizations that I worked for (both DoD) had a 'open standards only' policy -- we would not buy anything unless there was a freely implementable, non-patent-encumbered standard or specification for the product in question. The bigger and smarter organizations have adopted this policy -- it helps to avoid vendor lock-in and we know it!

I think that if this is MS' tactic, they're throwing away a v. big customer. That said, I do fear that you're right...

Reid

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're talking about the United States or China.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[skulgnome]

And they have the temerity to complain when the world expresses in no uncertain terms that they are very much disliked for their shenanigans. Exploiting a cooperative international process for leverage "just in case" is plainly unconscionable.

Ought to nuke the fuckers, is what I'm saying. Oh, wait, you meant the US? never mind then, just passing through...

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[jhol13]

Neither I do believe this was planned outcome.

But will Microsoft use the situation to their advantage now? They have already bought and blackmailed for sabotaging in some countries, so they definitely have no policy against it. ISO just might be too visible and might get a huge retribution from EU or like.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[Carewolf]

It is the US that is using their veto power whereever they go, or just ignore the result if they don't have a veto.

China is still only slowly getting into the game.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[speaker of the truth]

Of course it is. What they did was embraced it (asked to be approved as an open standard), extended it (put a whole lot of countries onto it). Now all that's left is for them to extinguish it (wait in the coming weeks for Microsoft's FUD about ISO).

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[maroberts]

The Americans learned from when Russia went off in a huff and didn't participate in the Security Council of the UN. As a result, there was no other power to veto lots of UN Resolutions made by the US at the time.

Since then, the last Superpower and the reviving Superpowers have made it a point to have a voice on every committee and organisation going.

Re:I wonder if this isn't an intended byproduct...

[jumpinp]

Extend, embrace, extinguish. With MS setting the standard we don't need the committee anyway.

gridlock

[User 956]

In the chairman's words, the committee has 'ground to a halt.'

See that? American style democracy is popular overseas.

Re:gridlock

[AutoTheme]

See that? American style democracy is popular overseas. Is there any other kind?

Re:gridlock

[Solandri]

See that? American style democracy is popular overseas.

Is there any other kind?

Sure, there's the European style, which is procedurally different but functionally equivalent.

http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/torsoboy.jpg

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/gulf-war-ii.php

Re:gridlock

[fermion]

You say it like it is funny, but if one looks at the past 6 years of so of increasing single issue authoritarian rule, one sees the damage caused by self centered interests. In both cases, we have vocal minorities so concerned with telling others what is right and wrong, that they elect incompentant and often otherwise immoral persons.

Not to be a conspiracy-theorist, but...

[calebt3]

They could be abstaining in protest of their vote not passing. Either that or they got their money from M$ and don't care anymore. It's not like M$ has any reason to get them to vote again.

Re:Not to be a conspiracy-theorist, but...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

They're not abstaining. They're simply not showing up to vote. A vote is either for, against, or abstain. A failure to vote is a non-vote, not a vote to abstain. Big difference.

Re:Not to be a conspiracy-theorist, but...

[speaker of the truth]

If they officially abstained the format would be approved (or denied approval). By abstaining by not voting, they're able to protest much more effectively.

tough shit

[Snotman]

I guess if they allow for members to join spontaneously and upgrade their memnbership without showing any commitment to the standards body, then they get to sit in their own shit and do nothing now. Thank you MS for doing your part in exposing the ridiculousness of this standards body's regulations and processes.

Re:tough shit

[m50d]

A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone; it's run under the assumption that its members, while they may disagree on the technical details, all want to agree a standard - otherwise, why would they be there? Saying not being able to deal with this sort of thing is a problem with ISO is like saying not being able to deal with a passerby kicking the board over and running off with the pieces is a problem with chess.

Re:tough shit

[redJag]

Make a chess board with pieces that can only be moved by players that have been attending and contributing to chess club meetings for X months. Otherwise the pieces remain stuck in place so when that jerk kicks over the board you can just put it back on the table :)
It's not a nice place out there. At least that's what my parents keep telling me.../returns to basement.

Re:tough shit

[rhizome]

A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone; it's run under the assumption that its members, while they may disagree on the technical details, all want to agree a standard - otherwise, why would they be there?

This assumes that Microsoft and their ilk are using the same definition of "standards."

Re:tough shit

[CaptKilljoy]

>A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone.

Can you really be that naive? Standards bodies have been corporate battlegrounds ever since they came into being.

Re:tough shit

[Chris Mattern]

A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone; it's run under the assumption that its members, while they may disagree on the technical details, all want to agree a standard - otherwise, why would they be there?

I'd say we just had an excellent example of why they'd be there, wouldn't you?

Chris Mattern

Re:tough shit

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Saying not being able to deal with this sort of thing is a problem with ISO is like saying not being able to deal with a passerby kicking the board over and running off with the pieces is a problem with chess.

We're not talking about a couple of people playing Chess, we're talking about a major international standards body.

To use your analogy, it's like not being able to deal with a passerby kicking the board over and running off with the pieces in a major Chess tournament. You can bet that the match organizers take steps to prevent that.

Re:tough shit

[griffjon]

Every day, I miss the concept of "rough consensus and running code" a bit more.

Re:tough shit

[durdur]

Standards bodies have been corporate battlegrounds ever since they came into being. You betcha. I have some scars to prove it ;-).

Re:tough shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, match organisers probably don't have a system for stopping attacks from spectators. Chess Tournaments are serious places full of dedicated chess players. At the only one I have been to (in a hotel in Gibralter), there was a small rope to indicate where spectators should sit, but no other security measure.

Chess is not especially well funded, and simply couldn't afford major defences around players. Luckily, if anyone were to kick the board over and steal the pieces, most of the audience could immediately reset another board with the pieces in the position they were in prior to the attack. They could probably immediately provide a spare board and pieces, too.

Re:tough shit

[m50d]

To use your analogy, it's like not being able to deal with a passerby kicking the board over and running off with the pieces in a major Chess tournament. You can bet that the match organizers take steps to prevent that.

OK, but in that case the passerby is someone else who's entered the tournament. Which there aren't official methods of dealing with - I'm sure something would be done, just like I'm sure ISO will figure out a way to deal with these people, but there's no standard procedure in place, because the very idea that it would happen is just ludicrous.

Re:tough shit

[m50d]

Can you really be that naive? Standards bodies have been corporate battlegrounds ever since they came into being.

Battling over what goes into the standard, sure - but chess is also a battleground in that sense. The notion of a company joining with the intent of preventing any standard ever being made is, as far as I know, something entirely new.

one thought

[Anonymous Coward]

put in place an additional voting rule: you must vote in a timely manner or lose P status.

Re:one thought

[Caesar Tjalbo]

So what's "timely" given the OOXML spec was 6000+ pages of obfuscated MS jargon? You Can't blame some voting members for using the MicroSoft Standards Unification Control Coordinating Specification (tm) which only consisted of one word: "YES", then.

Countermeasures or Corruption?

[Tom]

Up to now it was pulling a quick one, but with this it has turned into a full-scale abuse.

It will be interesting to see if the ISO fixes this problem (e.g. by withdrawing P status from all the abusers) or not. If ISO decides to do nothing, the only rational reason is to not have to admit that the vote was almost fixed - and that means there is corruption at the highest levels of the organisation.

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

(e.g. by withdrawing P status from all the abusers)

Sure, they'll have a vote on evicting the abusers, just as soon as they can get a vote to schedule the vote to evict the abusers, which they'll do as soon as the abusers start showing up to the meetings and casting votes so they can meet their quorum. If their rules don't provide for a mechanism of casting off inactive members when there's a huge chunk of inactive members, they're basically fucked.

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[Tom]

Kick them out and wait if they show up to sue. When they do, haul them into a meeting. Problem solved. :-)

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, they just start up a new working group with the exact same mandate but new rules about needing to participate in a minimum percentage of votes to maintain P status. Then they magnanimously notify participants of the previous WG that they can join the new WG for no extra cost. So the old WG dies on the vine and the new one picks up the slack after the ballot stuffers miss enough votes. Problem solved.

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[nuzak]

> that means there is corruption at the highest levels of the organisation.

Corruption in a U.N. organization? Say it isn't so!

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[jschrod]

I know that you try to sound funny -- but this doesn't succeed. You realize that ISO is not a UN organization, do you?

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[VGPowerlord]

Actually, given that SC34 is a subcommittee of JTC1, can't the main JTC1 committee vote to evict them?

Re:Countermeasures or Corruption?

[nuzak]

Sigh, yes I was thinking of the ITU. Which doesn't exactly reek with corruption either. I get my TLAs mixed up.

Microshaft by name

[Finallyjoined!!!]

All the time, effort & money they spent trying to subvert the committees has backfired on the "bought" members. They took their piece of silver to vote for microshaft, that didn't work out. Now they have not the slightest interest, and the real members are now having problems. Unless, of course, someone finds a little bag of silver, to bring microshaft back to the table..

Hamstrung

[Kadin2048]

Their bylaws probably prevent them from doing this except by a vote of all the P-class members.

I've seen this sort of thing happen before, to smaller organizations. You get a huge influx of members for some reason, but then they stop participating. If you didn't anticipate this possibility when drafting your constitution or bylaws, and you have some rule in there that says "changes to the bylaws must be ratified by 50% of the membership" or something similar, you're screwed. You can't change the rules, because nobody shows up, and you can't do anything, because nobody shows up.

Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself and reform under a slightly different name, with a better set of bylaws...

Re:Hamstrung

[macshit]

Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself and reform under a slightly different name, with a better set of bylaws...

I propose the "International Microsoft Sucks Standards Organization" (IMSSO).

Bylaws:

    1. Before any vote, all members must stand and re-affirm their (legally binding) pledge to destroy Microsoft, Windows, and all that is associated with them
    2. This is followed by the singing of the "Microsoft Sucks" song. ...

Re:Hamstrung

[petermgreen]

Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself and reform under a slightly different name, with a better set of bylaws...
You can't disolve something you can't control, you can of course quit from it and reform under a different name but I doubt you could take your ISO approved status with you easilly.

Re:Hamstrung

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be iMSSO

Re:Hamstrung

[Zeinfeld]

Before any vote, all members must stand and re-affirm their (legally binding) pledge to destroy Microsoft, Windows, and all that is associated with them

Well what do you expect if this is your attitude?

Both the document formats on offer are thin XML veneers on an existing code base. The only difference is that one code base is open source and the other is the market leader with 90% plus market share.

Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard. Recognize it as such, embrace and extend. Everyone who wants to sell a word processor has to support Word document formats anyway so why be so snotty about it all?

If people turn the standards process into a pissing contest they end up hurting everyone. Microsoft made a perfectly reasonable request. They did not ask for exclusivity, they made the IPR openly available.

We had the same thing happen with SPF and SenderID, sticking their thumb in Microsoft's eye was much more important to some people than stopping the spammers.

The standards process is about recognition, not choice. Almost no standards bodies have the power to make a standard by declaration alone. Most ISO standards are (justly) ignored. Virtually no restaurant in the entire US provides ISO 3103 compliant tea (although they no longer make it with salt water).

A standards process must either recognize an existing de facto standard or establish a widespread consensus amongst the participants to succeed.

It is often more important to recognize a de facto standard than propose improvements. For example, in the US almost all lightbulbs use the flawed Edison Screw mount. From a technical point of view it is inferior to the European Swan Bayonet fixture in almost every way. The Edison screw was chosen as the standard in the Us because it was widely supported and the patents had expired.

Re:Hamstrung

[roystgnr]

2. This is followed by the singing of the "Microsoft Sucks" song.

You know, I'm all in favor of more organizations for anti-Microsoft geeks, but I've got to warn you that asking us to sing can only end in tragedy.

Re:Hamstrung

[Kjella]

Sounds to me like something that'd happen enough that all important organizations would have an "escape hatch" clause that would allow them to make an extraordinary session where members have to attend or accept the voting majority's present. Fair enough that it can happen in smaller organizations but don't tell me the ISO standards committee rules was made by amateurs...

Re:Hamstrung

[rainer_d]

> Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard.

I'd like to propose the wording "widespread document-format".
Calling it a standard is too much honour. It implies "interoperability", which clearly was never, is not now and will not be ever on MSFTs agenda.

Re:Hamstrung

[Omnifarious]

There is no way for anybody but Microsoft to adequately implement the OOXML 'standard' but it is trivial for others to implement FAT. ODF at least has several existing implementations of varying levels of quality. Most are Open Source and so other implementers have code to look at when they're implementing.

In my opinion, a standard without source really isn't a standard at all. English is not a sufficiently precise language to really adequately describe a standard for computers, especially a complex one. Source code is the only real standard.

The IETF knows this, which is why the rule used to be (maybe it still is) that there have to be two inter-operating implementations before they'll call it a standard. IMHO, they should go the extra step and require one of the implementations to be licensed in a manner that meets the Open Source definition, but they created the rule before the concept of Free Software was all that widespread.

Re:Hamstrung

[DragonWriter]

Most ISO standards are (justly) ignored. Virtually no restaurant in the entire US provides ISO 3103 compliant tea (although they no longer make it with salt water).

ISO 3103 is a standard method of brewing tea for use in sensory tests, which is not the principal purpose for which most restaurants brew tea. While it may be true that most ISO standards are ignored, a case where a standard is not generally applied outside of its area of intended application hardly demonstrates, or even illustrates, that point.

Re:Hamstrung

[Skreems]

Virtually no restaurant in the entire US provides ISO 3103 compliant tea (although they no longer make it with salt water).

There's probably a good reason for that. Likely:

This standard is not meant to define the only proper method for brewing tea, but rather how to brew tea "for use in sensory tests". An example of such test is a taste-test to establish which blend of teas to choose for a particular brand in order to maintain a consistent tasting brewed drink from harvest to harvest.

Re:Hamstrung

[Zeinfeld]

In my opinion, a standard without source really isn't a standard at all. English is not a sufficiently precise language to really adequately describe a standard for computers, especially a complex one. Source code is the only real standard.

That is why we use tools such as XML Schema.

The IETF knows this, which is why the rule used to be (maybe it still is) that there have to be two inter-operating implementations before they'll call it a standard. IMHO, they should go the extra step and require one of the implementations to be licensed in a manner that meets the Open Source definition, but they created the rule before the concept of Free Software was all that widespread.

I don't know if the ISO committee has that rule but there are apparently 6 non Microsoft implementations (including the iPhone reader).

It would be nice to have a full open source office implementation but its not necessary to go that far to show that someone can successfully write an implementation from the specification.

Re:Hamstrung

[gnasher719]

There is no way for anybody but Microsoft to adequately implement the OOXML 'standard'
There is no way for anybody _including_ Microsoft to implement to OOXML 'standard'. Any such implementation would be sufficiently incompatible with Microsoft Office that nobody would buy it.

Re:Hamstrung

[codemachine]

Actually, OpenOffice 1.x used its own open XML file format stored in .sxw/.sxc/.sxi files. And although ODF is based on that prior work, there was effort made to sure it did not depend on the StarOffice/OpenOffice codebase, and was actually a format that could be implemented by others. OpenOffice 2.x defaults to the vendor neutral ODF, and uses filters to read the older OO/StarOffice XML and even older StarOffice binary formats.

Whereas OOXML was not developed in such a matter. It was created by one company using their own code as a reference. Outside groups did not have much influence until it was already in the standards body process, open to "comments". ODF encouraged participation of others from the beginning.

The formats aren't even the issue here though. MS clearly bribed countries in an effort to pollute the ISO process. Evidence of this is popping up all over the place. If OOXML was as worthy as ODF, would OOXML have failed (even in a tainted vote) where ODF had already succeeded?

Re:Hamstrung

[nuzak]

Great idea. They can meet once a month in your mom's basement.

Re:Hamstrung

[hey!]

The standards process is about recognition, not choice.

No, the standards process is about increasing the size of the market by making it efficient for vendors to sell to customers and for customers to buy from them. In a big, efficient market vendors have more customers and customers have more choice, so it's win all around. If everything that ran on electricity had its own unique plug, people wouldn't bother getting their houses wired, at least beyond light fixtures, which hopefully have standard sized bulbs.

If the standards process was really about recognition, there's be no need for it. If everybody has to use Word format because Microsoft is dominant, then there's no reason to go through the charade of committee meetings and product certification. The reason you need the whole bureaucratic procedure is to get competing vendors to agree to do things the same way. In a monopoly dominated market, there is no reason for the monopolist to participate in a standard that will undermine its monopoly. However there is every reason to interfere with the standards setting process.

Re:Hamstrung

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I absolutely agreed with you before this vote. It was clear that microsoft was deliberately trying to subvert the standards process. Its clear that their collateral damage from this failed attempt will take some time to clear up. If you don't get the right decision, it is not with in your rights to break any ethical barrier to get your way. Two wrongs don't make right. ect ect.

Re:Hamstrung

[rg3]

Or the "International Organization of No Microsofts".

Bill G.: But you let in Johny Microsoft Ltd.
Johny M.: [pops head out window] Hyuck hyuck!
IONM: We said no Microsoft_s_. We're allowed to have one.
Bill G.: Oh...

Re:Hamstrung

[petermgreen]

I don't know if the ISO committee has that rule but there are apparently 6 non Microsoft implementations (including the iPhone reader).
The devil is in the details, undoubtably people can get some approximation of a documents content from the XML file, they managed to do that with word documents a long time ago. Reliablly reading complex documents without screwing up the formatting is much harder. Even msword itself strugles to do it with documents from different versions.

not that odf is much better but at least you can look to the openoffice source for cases where the spec is too vauge to be usefull.

Re:Hamstrung

[just_another_sean]

the "Microsoft Sucks" song. ... Could you hum a few bars?

Re:Hamstrung

[ozmanjusri]

I'd like to propose the wording "widespread document-format".

Don't give the astroturfer credibility.

To suggest "Microsoft made a perfectly reasonable request." in the face of all the evidence of corruption is blatant spin. Microsoft's efforts with OOXML have always been nothing more than an attempt to spike potential competition.

Re:Hamstrung

[Tolkien]

and a re-enactment of Balmer's "Developers, Developers, Developers" set to techno music.

Re:Hamstrung

[HeroreV]

Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself It's not the entire ISO that's suffering from Microsoft here. It's not even the joint committee between ISO and IEC. It's only a subcommittee of the joint committee between ISO and IEC.

Perhaps the subcommittee should be dissolved, but that doesn't mean all of ISO should be. Don't burn down the house just because the refrigerator stopped working.

Re:Hamstrung

[Hyperspite]

MY EARS!!!!! *pop* ARGH I'M DEAF.

Re:Hamstrung

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a reference to an old simpsons episode, "Homer the great"
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F09.html

Re:Hamstrung

[m2943]

Well what do you expect if this is your attitude?

He was being sarcastic. You are being rather dense.

Both the document formats on offer are thin XML veneers on an existing code base.

That is incorrect. ODF required significant changes to the OpenOffice codebase and represents an incompatible change from the previous OpenOffice XML format. Furthermore, it has been adopted by several other projects and vendors. Microsoft, however, has taken a take-it-or-leave-it attitude towards the standards committee.

The only difference is that one code base is open source and the other is the market leader with 90% plus market share.

That, too, is incorrect: there are many differences in design and functionality. For example, ODF relies on existing web standards for features like mathematics and vector graphics, while Microsoft's XML has numerous unnecessary deviations from web standards.

Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard.

That may be, but Word is not a standard in the sense of an "ISO standard". Microsoft's format should not become an ISO standard because it doesn't satisfy the requirements for an ISO standard.

If people turn the standards process into a pissing contest they end up hurting everyone. Microsoft made a perfectly reasonable request. They did not ask for exclusivity, they made the IPR openly available.

Quite right, and ISO should reject Microsoft's submission, not because of any kind of competitive issues, but simply because it is a technically bad submission.

It is often more important to recognize a de facto standard than propose improvements. For example, in the US almost all lightbulbs use the flawed Edison Screw mount. From a technical point of view it is inferior to the European Swan Bayonet fixture in almost every way. The Edison screw was chosen as the standard in the Us because it was widely supported and the patents had expired.

And that brings up another point: the patents on Microsoft's submission have not expired yet.

A standards process must either recognize an existing de facto standard or establish a widespread consensus amongst the participants to succeed.

A standards process must also take technical considerations into account, like: whether the specification is sufficient for implementing compliant implementations, whether the specification is interoperable with other standards, and whether the intellectual property situation is clear. The Microsoft submission fails such tests. If a submission fails such tests, there is no point for ISO to approve it. In fact, arguably, the primary purpose of ISO is to verify that submissions satisfy these requirements and certify that they do.

The real question is why Microsoft wants to obtain ISO approval without actually satisfying the requirements. If Microsoft's XML is such a great de facto standard, why bother with ISO approval? It should be sufficient for Microsoft to put their specs on their web site and be done with it. ISO approval only makes sense if (1) a submission actually satisfies ISO requirements, and (2) the submitting organization is willing to listen to industry input and make changes.

Re:Hamstrung

[Alioth]

Douglas Adams would be proud:

Abstract

The method consists in extracting of soluble substances in dried tea leaf, containing in a porcelain or earthenware pot, by means of freshly boiling water, pouring of the liquor into a white porcelain or earthenware bowl, examination of the organoleptic properties of the infused leaf, and of the liquor with or without milk or both.

And... it costs 42 Swiss francs to buy the actual document.

Re:Hamstrung

[Aleksej]

Not only, though.

Re:Hamstrung

[Zeinfeld]

not that odf is much better but at least you can look to the openoffice source for cases where the spec is too vauge to be usefull

Which argues for neither being considered a standard.

Source code is not a good way to document an international standard. Source has bugs and changes over time. Experience has shown it to be even less reliable than English.

The best method of defining a standard is to use formal methods such as Z, VDM or CSP. The problem is that there are almost no people on the standards circuit that are familiar with them.

Re:Hamstrung

[Zeinfeld]

ISO 3103 is a standard method of brewing tea for use in sensory tests, which is not the principal purpose for which most restaurants brew tea. While it may be true that most ISO standards are ignored, a case where a standard is not generally applied outside of its area of intended application hardly demonstrates, or even illustrates, that point.

So how would you like your tea made, according to the method the taster used when blending the tea or according to some completely different method?

ISO 3103 is the English method of making tea, i.e. in a pot with BOILING water.

The standard American restaurant method is to present the customer with a cup of tepid water in a cup and ask them to select a teabag. Its cheaper to do that.

Re:Hamstrung

[Zeinfeld]

He was being sarcastic. You are being rather dense.

The sarcasm was the attitude I was referring to.

Writing standards is most of my job. Situations like this one in which we have partisan factions are not helpful to the process. At root the problem here is that people think that they can use the standards process to have ODF declared a standard and then have government offices and the like required to use Open Office (and probably Linux &ct.) as it is 'the' 'standard'.

It does not work that way. The US government has tried that in the past with pretty dire results. Believe it or not I still have to deal with the fallout from the 1980s decision to make OSI the federal standard. There are still folk plugging away trying to get X.500 (not LDAP) deployed in the hope that once that has been achieved it will form the hub that the rest of the OSI stack is deployed around. We had to wait for some people to retire to remove their schemes.

I could not care less whether Office or OpenOffice is the standard in ten years time. They are both relics of 1980s technology at best. If you want to beat Office write something better.

That what we did with the Web. The Web was not a clone of Hyper-G or Gopher, it was something better. People often overlook the fact that the Web was by any measure the most successful open source effort in history. We put the code into the public domain precisely so that others could use it.

It would not be at all difficult to write something better than Office which is a collection of five or six separate programs with not very good means of integration. Spreadsheets are a poor means of manipulating information, Mathematica and its ilk are much better but also limited.

Re:Hamstrung

[White Yeti]

Or call it the "Ancient Mystic Society of No Microsoft".

Re:Hamstrung

[jpvlsmv]

"Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard"...

You mean that just because 80% of the population is overweight, we should just accept that and start installing larger seats in airplanes, and decreasing the "maximum passengers allowed" in elevators?

--Joe

Re:Hamstrung

[Ganesh999]

Good post. But...

> In a monopoly dominated market, there is no reason for the monopolist to participate in a standard
> that will undermine its monopoly.

Statement needs qualification.

In context, and more importantly, a monopoly routinely fragments the market to maximise its revenue in all possible sectors (Economics 101). For example :

"No, I'm afraid our Product X doesn't do that, for that you need our Product Y, which we'll trade in for your current copy of Product X at a frankly amazing discount of 10%!"

which, if carefully played, can then lead to:

"Oh, you need to do *both* X *and* Y? Why didn't you say so? You need Plugin Z, which costs only $n,000! Yes sir, just between you and me that *does* sound like a lot, let me check the figures...oh, look! I'm afraid that price *was* correct, but the good news is that we offer a special discount of 20% for existing customers! Would you like to give me your credit card details now?"

Does any of this sound familiar?

Monopolists fragment markets all the time, that's just how they operate. It makes *perfect* sense for Microsoft to participate in a standard (such as ODF) that will harm it in the short term, simply so that it can fork that standard (and hence fragment the market) later, preferably with something patented. Basic abuse of its monopoly position via standard monopolistic "single seller" and "absence of close substitutes" mechanisms. It worked with html, so why shouldn't it work with odf?

So why is MS bothering with OOXML at all? Wikipedia puts it beautifully :

"It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of efficiency can raise a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants."

Or in other words: right now OOXML is just too good a piece of FUD to let go. Why let go of even short-term profits? (which is the angle you were coming from)

Conrad

Re:Hamstrung

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who keeps the metric system down? We doo... we dooooooooooooooo!!!!!"

Re:Hamstrung

[eck011219]

I love that song! "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers ..."

Re:Hamstrung

[DragonWriter]

So how would you like your tea made, according to the method the taster used when blending the tea or according to some completely different method?

I find that many teas are best with hot-but-short-of-boiling water, and a brewing/steeping time of substantially less than the 6 minutes called for by ISO 3103, and that brewing in separate pot vs. directly in a cup doesn't help much, and I've at least never observed substantial effects from using a wide variety of different size cups (never actually used a "bowl" as called for by ISO 3103 as the serving container) and pots than those called for by ISO 3103. So, in general, I think "a completely different method."

Standardization of method for taste tests used to choose which teas to grow, purchase, etc. in bulk is arguably useful to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Its not necessarily the best way to make any particular cup of tea.

ISO 3103 is the English method of making tea, i.e. in a pot with BOILING water.

I wasn't aware that proper English teamaking required that the tea be brewed either in a pot of 310 ml with a mass of 200g or one of 150 ml with a mass of 118g and then be poured into a bowl of 380 ml (if the larger pot was used) or 200 ml (if the smaller pot was used), and that, if milk is used, it must be 5ml (for the large bowl) or 2.5 ml (for the small one).

Re:Hamstrung

[darthflo]

There is no way for anybody _including_ Microsoft to implement to OOXML 'standard'.

Perfect.
If MSFT actually pushed OOXML all the way through to an ISO standard, governments and large organizations (which are, to my knowledge, the main cause for Microsofts wish to go ISO) would probably base their choice of an office suite on said ISO certification*. Microsoft would definately push Office as ISO-x compliant, so Office's market share would probably stay around where it is now (everywhere, despite improving competition from the likes of OOo).
Now assuming you were right (which I am pretty sure isn't the case, but let's not debate about opinions), Office's implementation of OOXML would be buggy in a way that would make it not support said ISO standard. Wouldn't that be an anti-Microsoft fanbois wet dream? Imagine you could sue Microsoft to whatever representation of afterlife you believe in and back. Imagine not only you, but lots and lots of governments would. All possible thanks to Microsoft spending (probably) billions of Dollars to create a standard which they wouldn't be able to support. Sounds pretty funny, but do you seriously think a company of Microsofts size would risk their biggest source of income in such an extremely stupid fashion? I hope you don't.

*: Of course many acquisitions would still be based on not wanting to "learn" how to use an alternative, admin lazyness and profitable business lunches, but instead of finding justifiable reasons, all could (and very probably would - I worked for a gov't, I know the climate) be based upon ISO-x support and all the nice advantages resulting thereof.

Re:Hamstrung

[/ASCII]

Last time I heard, there where no OOXML implementations. The actual format implemented in Microsoft Office is different enough from what is described in the standard to cause huge headaches, and last time I heard all non-Microsoft imlementations only delat with a very small subset of the standard.

Re:Hamstrung

[drseuk]

Maybe the ISO Standards Committee should dissolve itself and reform under a slightly different name, with a better set of bylaws... ISO 2.0?

Let me get this straight

[ifchairscouldtalk]

When you say chairman, you mean Ballmer, right?

Yikes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please oh please say that there is a standard coming. Life just can't go on if we don't have a standard.

Re:Yikes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please oh please say that there is a standard coming.

The lovin spoonful baby.

Slashdoted

[alexborges]

Destination link is DOWN....

Man... Microsoft really has them pinned down dont it?

Re:Slashdoted

[uofitorn]

What do you expect, it's a kdawson post. I wouldn't be surprised if the only URL in the submitted story was a link to someone's personal blog (although judging by the URL, it's probably not).

I for one....

[phoenixwade]

welcome no damn overlords...

But I DO welcome Microsofts interference, in this case, at any rate. Because they didn't get what they want AND pointed out the major flaws in the system.

My Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

My suggestion is that we start calling it MS-ISO until steps are taken to clean up corruption and remove the overbearing Microsoft influence. Basically ISO now belongs to Microsoft in all but name, so lets name it as such. Making this new name popular will increase awareness of the problem.

Might I also suggest that anyone who finds Microsoft's actions dispicable stop supporting their software? Don't give them your money, don't even pirate their software, it only encourages actions like this.

Alternate link

[greenreaper]

Since the site is down, here's a mirrored copy

Re:Alternate link

[Anonymous Coward]

Where? Where's the link to the mirrored copy?

this is just like Microsoft

[snsh]

it's just like Microsoft to clog up your network with stale, unscavenged records

and we still can't manage to purge 'WORKGROUP' and 'MSHOME' from our WINS

Very simple solution

[cmacb]

If you can't be bothered to vote, you are out. Paid or not.

Microsoft doesn't make bugs only in computer

[denisbergeron]

but also in world process !

Now, that a big bad corporation, that have enought power to stop the ISO process.
 
Ok, Bill what the next move, are you resposible for the Sun to shutoff , just because you don't know the difference between Sun and the SUN ?

What about your Social responsibility.
  In a normal country, this kind of organisation would have been shutoff for long.

Re:Microsoft doesn't make bugs only in computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info, tought it was because of the global warming!

OK, it would help if the link actually worked...

[greenreaper]

Here we go.

Wow.

[zsouthboy]

The thing is - why was OOXML tried as a "fast track" item anyway? You know what I mean?

How freaking important could a document standard (hard to type without a straight face) be, that it needed to be fast-tracked?

(Yes, I know that's not why they attempted to fast-track it.)

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't fast-tracked, then people might actually have the time to read the proposed standard, and god forbid, make an informed decision. It's obvious why MS wanted to push it through as fast as possible.

It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[gambolt]

It looks like a vote is only required when a P member objects. The net result of this is that there must be full agreement on all
motions for them to pass since an objection automatically triggers a vote for which quorum will be unobtainable.

According to Directives 9.1.6 "If any P-member objects to the question during this period, the question will be decided by a vote, either at a meeting or by letter ballot", this single negative response triggers the requirement now for a formal letter ballot from all SC34 P-members soliciting an explicit approve/disapprove response.

In the case of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34, something to do with establishing a liaison with the XML guild, The Netherlands filed an objection triggering a full vote to which the following countries did not respond:

Bulgaria
Brazil
Switzerland
Côte-d'Ivoire (wtf?)
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
France
India
Japan
Kenya
Korea, Republic of
Kazakhstan (insert Borat reference here)
Lebanon
Malta
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Sweden
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[shawnmchorse]

Côte-d'Ivoire (wtf?)

The official name for the Ivory Coast, in Africa.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[initdeep]

Côte-d'Ivoire (wtf?)

Ivory Coast.

Now go back to elementary school geography.

You're making the rest of us look stupid.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[belmolis]

Côte-d'Ivoire (wtf?)

That's French for Ivory Coast, whic is probably how you know the country. They switched to using the French version as the official name even in English a while back.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[nog_lorp]

Côte-d'Ivoire = The Ivory Coast Strange they would be so interested in this, considering 1.67% of their population even uses the internet. (CIA factbook numbers)

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[negated]

>>> Kazakhstan = "Kazakhstan (insert Borat reference here)"
>>> Kazakhstan.replace("insert Borat reference here", "this vote is very BOOOOOOOring!!")

-S

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[Just Some Guy]

The official name for the Ivory Coast, in Africa.

I think the WTF is that the Ivory Coast, in Africa, is involved in this at all.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[uglydog]

ah, yes! i woulda been shocked if pakistan had actually done something. my people never let me down. represent!

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[DragonWriter]

I think the WTF is that the Ivory Coast, in Africa, is involved in this at all.

Uh, why? On the one hand, poor countries with relatively little current computer/internet penetration have a substantial interest in how these decisions go, since it plays a big role in determine how expensive it will be for them to improve their condition.

And, on the other hand, poor countries are cheaper for interested first-world corporations to bribe.

So, on either side, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
E

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[garyok]

I think the WTF is that the Ivory Coast, in Africa, is involved in this at all.

Where's the -1, Bigot moderation when you need it? Oh well, at least you posted it under your 4-digit UID, so we know it's Alzheimer's kicking in, working loose all those issues Daddy inculcated. It turns our that Cote d'Ivoire is one of the most economically successful African nations with a reasonable telecoms infrastructure for a developing nation - 4m mobile phones in a population of 18m. Could try harder on the not-killing-each-other front, but the western nations are hardly getting top marks right in that subject right now either. Anyway, off to the State Re-education Sensitivity and Tolerance Happy Camp for you, you bad person.

I've worked in IT in the UK with contractors from all over Africa - they're as good as anyone else in IT. Of course, that means that they can be work-shy indolent pricks with bad attitudes too - competing with the best of us, on our terms.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[garyok]

And what were the figures for the USA, or the UK, or Japan, or South Korea 15 years ago? Pretty similar, I'd guess. Most people in the developed nations didn't get on until AOL flooded the Earth with drinks mats in '96-'97. They're a developing nation. You know, one of those nations the rest of the world uses the WTO to fuck over in trade negotiations. One of those nations that got told by the World Bank to invest in coffee and cocoa production, along with about 30 others - wouldn't want expensive coffee now, would we? I reckon they're doing pretty well really.

Little Baby Jeebus is crying right now at all the snobbery, exclusivity, and not a little racism going on in this thread.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[Just Some Guy]

Where's the -1, Bigot moderation when you need it?

Don't worry. You probably won't be downmodded too harshly since you're still a newbie.

Everything you said is probably true, but there's still a huge gap between the G8 countries and west Africa. In any event, small similar countries should be voting for the standards they can actually afford to uphold, in this case OpenDocument. Anything else is a WTF, even if it's completely and obviously explained by short-term bribery.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[garyok]

Maybe that bribery is paying for quite a few computer suites loaded up with the latest MS software at the University of Cote d'Ivoire. And the CI reps figure MS is going to win in long run anyway (as they currently are, by default), so why not take the money so their students don't feel like poor country cousins when they turn up to work? Their only danger is that MS get WGA to work properly and they can't rip off any updates when the bribe money runs out. That's the philanthropic view. The misanthropic view is the reps are too busy stuffing the cash into strippers' thongs and rolling the bills up to snort fat lines of coke to give two shits about the long-term economic welfare of their countrymen. Either way, they've got their reasons and the right to participate. But non-attendance should be counted as abstention and grounds for reduction in rank no matter what continent you're from.

Re:It's a much more complicated change in dynamic

[GradiusCVK]

Actually, the official name is the République de Côte d'Ivoire. I think you may have misinterpreted him... the question isn't "what the f- is the Côte d'Ivoire", it's "what the f- is the Côte d'Ivoire doing on this ISO committee". Seems like they might have very little reason to be on the committee other than to act as Microsoft's stooge.

Unexpected benefit to MS?

[amigabill]

I wonder if they even knew their game might lead to this... Seeing as how much MS loves industry standards that are not theirs to own and control, this certainly isn't bad for MS, but was it part of the plan or just an unexpected joy in their life?

I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[Spy der Mann]

This has got me so mad I'm on the edge of becoming vigilante. Sigh. How to cause the greatest economical damage to Microsoft in the smallest timeframe while remaining legal? :-/

There *must* be a way... if anyone finds it, I'm in. In the meantime, please donate money to http://reactos.org/ and to encourage development of ReactOS.

Re:I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[Fallen Kell]

Easy, buy an XBOX360 and don't buy any games.

Re:I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[Eponymous Bastard]

Don't you need it to die and get it fixed under warranty for that to work?

Re:I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[fizzding]

No, they still lose money on the system itself, as it is subsidized by buying games.

Re:I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[Runefox]

I'm actually fairly certain that Microsoft is in the black on the 360 (even if just a little), whereas the PS3 is still selling in the red. Little things like sticking with DVD, software-emulated backwards compatibility and the like cut costs a lot for them. While Sony promised everything under the sun and attempted to deliver, they failed on most counts, and now they're cutting features from PS3 consoles (and pulling entire lines off the shelves) and making full 180 turnarounds on many issues that were once important/unimportant (such as backwards compatibility and rumble). Microsoft's 360, on the other hand, is adding features as time goes on, and not a single 360 SKU has been retired yet to my knowledge (though the Core will soon be replaced by the Arcade).

So yeah, not the best way to bring down the MS giant. If only Sony and MS would exhaust themselves in a console war to such an extent that nobody could take either of them seriously any more, we'd be set.

Re:I'm feeling in an anarchist mood today....

[tbannist]

They lose more money if you don't buy the 360.

They get removed... eventually.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they can even amend their rules without the other voting members.

However, they do have conditions whereby the non-voters will eventually get removed for missing too many votes. It's just that that will take a while.

Hopefully, they'll add new rules afterwards to keep those folks from rejoining unless they participate in a lot more votes about many different topics (and make them do more than just vote 'abstain' a bunch of times).

Re:They get removed... eventually.

[Trillan]

"No Abstain" wouldn't work as a rule. Then they'll pick Yes or No, depending on what Microsoft thinks, or pick one at random.

Membership expiration??

[phil reed]

OK, so at what point do these new memberships expire? Or do you get to keep your upgraded "P" membership forever?

throw them out

[justdrew]

so if they don't vote revoke their P level membership. and throw god damned microsoft the hell out.

Re:throw them out

[initdeep]

For one missed vote?

Can we adopt that rule for Congress too?

And all other forms of "public service" entities?

I for one would LOVE to see that happen and a major country like say, France, forget to vote in something.....

Re:throw them out

[geekoid]

If that missed vore brings the country to a halt, then Yes.

Re:throw them out

[VGPowerlord]

According to the RTFA, it was three missed votes, two of which would have passed had at least 50% voted.

Re:throw them out

[VGPowerlord]

er... according to the article. Freudian slip. :P

That gives me an idea...

[Spy der Mann]

OpenISO could just invite the members of ISO and effectively render ISO obsolete. They could abstain to vote on all ISO decisions and do everything through OpenISO. It may take a few million dollars to establish, but I say it's worth it.

Re:That gives me an idea...

[Sodki]

It's FreeISO, you insensitive clod.

Re:That gives me an idea...

[petermgreen]

sure but it is something that would have to happen at the complete iso level with major publicity, one pissed off commitee isn't going to manage it.

Re:That gives me an idea...

[HeroreV]

The article is about Subcommittee 34 (SC 34), which pertains to "Document Description and Processing Languages". It is a part of Joint Technical Committee 1, a joint committee between ISO and IEC.

ISO is enormously huge and important. It isn't limited to technical specifications. It also define standards for lots of other stuff like food, screws, cars, and timber.

The people who created OpenISO are clueless. Have you seen their website? They, like many, don't seem to realize that ISO does more than just approve technical documents.

So here's where the problem is:
ISO > JTC1 > SC 34
And you want to replace all of ISO? That's ridiculous!

And why is it that people talk so much about replacing ISO, but nothing about replacing IEC? Is it because their name comes second in "ISO/IEC", and nobody's gotten around to looking after the slash yet?

ISO isn't going anywhere. The joint committee between ISO and IEC isn't going anywhere. Maybe subcommittee 34 of the joint committee between ISO and IEC will be dissolved, but that is nowhere near the enormity of dissolving ISO.

Re:That gives me an idea...

[seanellis]

I think you mean GNU/FreeISO.

Re:That gives me an idea...

[ORBAT]

I'd suggest GNI as in "GNI's Not ISO."

This is why..

[scubamage]

TCP/IP overtook OSI as a network model. While OSI is relatively simpler and more clear cut, it took ISO so long to get it off the ground that by the time it actually solidified TCP/IP had left it in the dust. So far as I know, to this day TCP/IP isn't a true standard as much as it is a de facto standard. I say, let the beurocracies procrasterbate, and the people who actually write software will decide which standard they want. Ultimately a voted-on standard isn't that important if no one uses it.

Re:This is why..

[eklitzke]

TCP and IP are standards in the sense that they are both documented by RFCs, which are considered to be standards by pretty much everyone who matters (i.e. the people implementing the protocols).

Re:This is why..

[WK2]

You have a point regarding de facto standards being more relevant than voted on standards. However, your example of TCP/IP vs OSI is totally wrong. OSI is a model. TCP and IP are protocols within the OSI. TCP is a transport layer, and IP is a network layer.

Re:This is why..

[el borak]

OSI is relatively simpler and more clear cut Wha? Did you ever actually try to implement/use OSI? I did. And the words "simple" or "clear" never crossed my mind. It was a classic case of "design by committee", rivaled only by Ada in my experience.

Re:This is why..

[asuffield]

However, your example of TCP/IP vs OSI is totally wrong. OSI is a model. TCP and IP are protocols within the OSI. TCP is a transport layer, and IP is a network layer.

Actually, no. Both TCP and IP lie across the boundaries defined by the OSI model - TCP is part of layers 5 and 4, and IP is part of layers 3 and 2. TCP is most similar to a transport layer, but it implements things from layer 5 as well. What you have to realise is that way back when (in the time the GP is referring to), there were two competing network systems: there was the system built around protocols like X.25, X.400, X.500, and other ISO/ITU-T stuff. That's the one where email addresses looked like G=Harald;S=Alvestrand;O=Uninett;P=Uninett;A=;C=no. The other system originated at DARPA and should be more familiar: TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP, and that lot.

The first system was called the OSI protocol suite and corresponded to the OSI network model. The second system was called the internet. OSI lost, and the internet won, largely because OSI involved a lot of complicated many-layered models and a lot of paperwork, while the internet kept things simple.

And for this you should be eternally grateful. OSI was horrible.

Re:This is why..

[asuffield]

It is well known among the people who implement the protocols that if you implement TCP according to the standards, you get something that doesn't work on the internet. The RFCs are imperfect documentation of how things actually work - the details are more subtle.

Re:This is why..

[_Shad0w_]

The IRC RFC (the original, I don't think anyone even looks at the new ones) suffers from much the same problem. Come to think of it, it didn't even match the implementation in the original IRC server daemon. The Client to Server portions will work OK, but the Server to Server portions have been re-implemented in custom manners by most of the major networks.

Re:This is why..

[mgblst]

So you are pro the Microsoft word standard then? I guess Microsoft should just dictate all standards from now on?

You seem to have a small leap in logic. What difference does it make what programmers want, if everybody only uses the one standard set out by Microsoft. TCP/IP way may have worked in the pre-Microsoft days, but now there is just too much money in standards for it to be left up to anyone else.

Re:This is why..

[Fred_A]

TCP/IP overtook OSI as a network model. While OSI is relatively simpler and more clear cut, It only looks that way when you see it on four colour glossy paper.
When you poke at X-whatever networks it certainly stops being simple or clear cut. Be thankful history turned out the way it has. Internet networking is quite simple compared to the OSI nest of snakes.

Re:This is why..

[igb]

``While OSI is relatively simpler and more clear cut'' --- the model, perhaps. The protocols were horrific. Yes, I've done implementation work with them. All hail Steve Kille and Julian Onions, but just think what they'd have achieved if they hadn't tried to make OSI implementable!

Re:This is why..

[Anonymous Coward]

An important reason why OSI never took off is that TCP/IP was given away for *free* (also Free), while big, big bucks were charged by the OSI stack vendors.

Something Free, and good enough, wins over something expensive but arguably better.

Re:This is why..

[marcosdumay]

The fact that TCP/IP had no patents on it and was implemented on free (BSD) code contributed a little...

Re:This is why..

[petermgreen]

there is the odd error in the client-server parts but you can get something that generally works by following it.

the server-server protocol is as you say ignored by all the major networks. Since operating an irc network that lets anyone hook up to it is a bad idea anyway due to design faults in irc there is no real need for the server-server protocol to be standardised.

Microsoft...AGAIN!

[Vengance Daemon]

Microsoft is a marvelous competitor; they are focused and have a great business. It's actually kind of nice to see a United States company actually winning in these days of a declining neoAmerica. However, why do they have to pollute everything that they touch that is outside of their company? Their "embrace, extend, and extinguish" policies are so destructive. It would be nice if they would just stick to business and try to win on the quality of their products. Like Vista...Oh, never mind.

Re:Microsoft...AGAIN!

[DM9290]

"a United States company"

can you define that? there is no rule forcing Microsoft to spend its profits inside America.. to hire Americans... to help the people of America, or to give a rats ass about America. Microsoft is a transnational corporation. don't pretend companies are citizens of states. as a living human being citizen you are basically stuck here.. this is your home, your culture, your roots, your identity, (and likely the only place on earth you can't be deported FROM.. well.. until the Bush administration changes that law) so you have a vested interest in making America a beautiful place to live. corporations do NOT have that prerogative. America could explode for all they cared.

People have to look at each and every corporation with an extremely cynical eye.

Does membership lapse?

[Zocalo]

Do members have to contribute financially to ISO in order to sit on these committees, or is it free as long as you are a duly appointed representative of a body recognized by ISO? If it's chargeable, which I suspect that it is, then the worst case scenario would probably be that nothing gets done until the next renewal fee. In all likelihood it will be even quicker than that once the "name and shame" game inevitably starts if a couple more rounds of attempting to convince the non-voting P-members to downgrade themselves back to Observer Status fails. There's even a chance that may be successful enough to allow votes to start passing if a point is reached where 50% of the P-voters can be bothered to express an opinion. Once that happens the very next votes should be on the topics of "what do we do about the sock puppets Microsoft bought?" and "how do we stop this happening again?"

Test the waters

[Eponymous Bastard]

I wonder if they can issue a ballot to drop OOXML altogether, or delay its consideration until all outstanding ballots are resolved.

If that turns out to be the only ballot responded they would have a much better case.

so much for 'free enterprise"

[Anonymous Coward]

its become 'fee enterprise'

pay a fee, become morally free

Best possible situation

[cstec]

Actually, the situation is pretty much ideal.

Before what you had was a small, unrepresentative committee with the power to create 'standards' as defined by a minority. Before, a small subset of potentially affected parties could basically ramrod whatever agenda they wanted through and call it a consensus. A standard by fiat.

Now that commercial and other interests are involved, surprise surprise, not everyone is in a rush to rubber stamp the docket. Good! Instead of having some token committee that's a puppet of the free software agenda, maybe now standards will return to being something the entire community has a voice in.

"That government is best which governs least."
-Thomas Paine

Re:Best possible situation

[Bazar]

Thats an incredibly dimwitted post

Standards aren't compulsory or binding, they are simply a guideline to allow better interoperability between systems. Having a standard created by fiat changes nothing, its still up to each country to decide if its worth complying with.

The fact that your suggesting that having a committee be unable to do anything is better, is baffling, especially when its a committee that is very likely to try and bend over backwards to fast track any standards Microsoft propose, regardless of how useful the standard actually is.

This isn't a case where the entire community has a gained a clearer voice, its a case where the voice has been corrupted to suit the needs of private interests.

Good news everyone !

[ianare]

This is great! I'm sure the ISO will straighten out its act, even though it may take a bit. And, when they do, the chairmen and respectable organizations will be rightfully angry at M$ for this. Which means that for the next round of voting on the Open Orifice XML, M$ will be in a much, much tougher spot : the vote fixing will (hopefully) be taken care of, and the more senior and influential members will be pissed. This of course being in addition to the crap "standard" that it is.

My prediction? OOXML will not make ISO now :-)

No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Animats]

The "article" is just some blogger blithering. If you read the actual ISO rules, it's clear they can deal with this easily enough.

• 1.7.4 A technical committee or subcommittee secretariat shall notify the Chief Executive Officer if a P-member of that technical committee or subcommittee has been persistently inactive and has failed to make a contribution to 2 consecutive meetings, either by direct participation or by correspondence, or has failed to vote on questions submitted for voting within the technical committee or subcommittee (such as new work item proposals).

  Upon receipt of such a notification, the Chief Executive Officer shall remind the national body of its obligation to take an active part in the work of the technical committee or subcommittee. In the absence of a satisfactory response to this reminder, the national body shall automatically have its status changed to that of O-member. A national body having its status so changed may, after a period of 12 months, indicate to the Chief Executive Officer that it wishes to regain P-membership of the committee, in which case this shall be granted.

• 1.7.5 If a P-member of a technical committee or subcommittee fails to vote on an enquiry draft or final draft International Standard prepared by the respective committee, the Chief Executive Officer shall remind the national body of its obligation to vote. In the absence of a satisfactory response to this reminder, the national body shall automatically have its status changed to that of O-member. A national body having its status so changed may, after a period of twelve months, indicate to the Chief Executive Officer that it wishes to regain P membership of the committee, in which case this shall be granted.

The "plaintive notes" the blogger writes about are the "reminder" mentioned above. This is just the step before the automatic status change to O (observer) member. Notice that once reduced to observer status, there's a delay of 12 months before a national standards body can reapply for P (principal) status.

So there's no problem.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Dracos]

If I had mod points, this would get +1 informative.

Does the ISO also have rules to place formerly P-level countries (and/or companies) on some type of probation?

Obviously ISO needs to revise their rules to prevent vote tampering, as obviously happened with the OOXML vote.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[BlueParrot]

So basically it is very likely that non of these members will be allowed to vote on the final say on OOXML? Nice.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[NMerriam]

Wow, the single most useful comment in the entire thread. Thanks for providing actual context to the situation!

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Karellen]

No, the P-members that voted in September are the ones who will get to decide at the Ballot Resolution Meeting next year. If it happens. While this means that no demoted P-members can be kicked off, it also means that no new P-members can be added to that meeting. Which might have been a bigger problem if MS had kept bribingrejuvenating countries that have had no previous interest in standards setting.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[slashqwerty]

Obviously ISO needs to revise their rules to prevent vote tampering, as obviously happened with the OOXML vote.

I think that was actually vote buying. And yes, ISO should change their rules to impose substantial financial penalties on any member caught selling their vote.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Anonymous Coward]

"A national body having its status so changed [to O-membership] may, after a period of 12 months, indicate to the Chief Executive Officer that it wishes to regain P-membership of the committee, in which case this shall be granted"

Sounds ideal. Wait until before the next vote on OOXML, downgrade the Microsoft claque to O-membership, take the vote, and then let them upgrade to P-membership again, 12 months too late, if they still want to.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[jkrise]

No, the P-members that voted in September are the ones who will get to decide at the Ballot Resolution Meeting next year. If it happens. While this means that no demoted P-members can be kicked off

If a P-member chooses NOT TO participate in the interim period until the BRM, and gets demoted; then why should they be allowed to vote in the BRM?

Does that mean a loophole exists in the ISO whereby the entire standards making process can be sabotaged for a single submission? If a P-member gets demoted to O-member, they should not be eligible to further participate as a P-member. Simple as that.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[JavaBear]

Why wait. Even if they are downgraded now, the members are unable to upgrade to P status before February 2008...

But if I read the summary for the three votes correctly, just about all but a handful of members can be downgraded, unless they have a very good explanation, reducing the P group to about half it's original size.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[TALlama]

There's a big problem if, having received their "plaintive notes," the laggard P-members say "no, we just didn't respond; we want to keep our membership." As far as I can see, as long as the P-member responds to the notes, even if they ignore all other business, they get to remain P-members.

Re:No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Bloater]

Are these countries that face demotion to O-member likely to vote against OOXML? I wonder if somebody is using local bureaucracy to buy one year without effective opposition - That's what I would do ;)

Unbelievably politically naive

[Colin Smith]

A standards committee is not designed as a battlezone; it's run under the assumption that its members, while they may disagree on the technical details, all want to agree a standard And standards are designed to create a monopoly situation for a particular technology or technical area. Monopolies are fabulous revenue generation mechanisms if you can get your personal technology ratified as a standard.

I don't believe for a second that MS is the first to attempt this. Not recognising this possibility in the rules is particularly naive.

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[Karellen]

That's utter crap! The point of de jure standards - the kind produced by ISO, where "a standard" is "a specification" - is to *prevent* monopolies, by providing a common specification that *anyone*, as opposed to a single company, can implement. This allows purchasers to pick from multiple interoperable suppliers of goods, providing competition, and reducing the chances that monopolies will form.

(Note, this is different from de facto standards, which use the word "standard" in the context of "it is standard" simply means "common" or "widespread". The .doc file format is an example. It is standard. It is not a standard. Also, de jure standards may well become de facto standards, but the reverse does not hold.)

NTSC/PAL being TV standards that mean that Disney, ABC, HBO, etc... all transmit TV in the same way, and that Sony, Phillips, Samsung, etc... can all receive it from any of these. If Disney transmitted in a secret, non-standardised format and required you to purchase a Disney TV to view Disney channels, they'd have a monopoly on TV sales from anyone who wanted to watch Disney on TV.

You could use almost any standard in any field of engineering for the same argument. I'd be hard pressed to find any that support yours. Name 5 ... no, 3 - name 3 de jure standards that have enabled or supported monopolies. Go on.

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[m2943]

name 3 de jure standards that have enabled or supported monopolies. Go on.

Well, while I generally agree with your assessment of the purpose of standards, standards processes have been hijacked before.

For example, both the DVD standard and the MPEG standards are really primarily there to let oligopolies control the market and make some patent holders very wealthy. In principle, you could encode audio and video better using free methods than using the methods in these standards, but making the patented methods standard ensures control and revenue.

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[m50d]

For example, both the DVD standard and the MPEG standards are really primarily there to let oligopolies control the market and make some patent holders very wealthy.

Not really - the RAND licensing requirements are there to ensure that you don't make loads of money from your licensing if it's going in a standard. There's a lot more money (in proportion to the amount of video played) in the licensing of codecs for web streaming, where there is no standard, than the people who wrote the codecs for DVDs are getting.

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[m2943]

Not really - the RAND licensing requirements are there to ensure that you don't make loads of money from your licensing if it's going in a standard.

MP3 license revenues generated ca. 100 million Euro revenue to the Fraunhofer Society in 2005.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

There was little reason to adopt MP3 back then, and there is no reason to keep using it now, other than that it's "the standard".

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of several examples - Dolby trying to get its patented stuff into ATSC, Qualcomm trying to get its cellular tech declared a standard, Rambus abusing various standards committees...

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Spelling/Grammar Nazi

%s/de jure/du jour/g

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[Karellen]

Ahem.

Re:Unbelievably politically naive

[Ginger Unicorn]

you spastic

MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT DOWN. This post is STOLEN from later material!

The final result of software patents

[mangu]

most software design isn't new ground or innovative. Gee, we're going to use a pointer, look a linked list!

That's what happens when you can effectively stop your competitors with a patent. Without patents, software companies would be forced to produce true innovations in order to survive. With patents, all you need is to have a bureaucrat grant you a monopoly on some small detail.

same as the US elections ...

[constantnormal]

A variation of this same phenomenon has held US elections in its grip for many decades, witness the continuous decline in the fraction of potentially eligible voters who actually vote.

If you limit that again by the fraction of those who go to the polls and have a clue about who the people are they're voting for (usually, they're voting against someone, and don't much care who gets in, so long as it's not candidate X), and are not merely blindly pulling the party lever, then the fraction of intelligent voters in our own system is effectively zero.

It's the death of democracy. As noted by others, if there is no provision to deny eligibility to vote for non-performance on the part of the voters, the system will die. And even if voters do go to the polls but are disgusted by the lack of choice, due to the major parties exercising duopoly control over every aspect of the process, the system dies then too.

It's just a matter of time before some lunatic figures out a way to game the system, either by destroying their opponents (physically, as Hitler and the Brown Shirts did in pre-WWII Germany, or via character smears and lies, as is the tradition in our nation (and several other "democratic" nations)) or wrapping themselves in some demagogic issue and making the election revolve about a single issue. In such circumstances, the aggregate "wisdom of the crowd" is transformed into the lunacy of the mob -- think the French Revolution and Robespierre's Reign of Terror (or our own War on Terror, for that matter).

Once you manage to turn away thoughtful discussion/argument/debate, and limit the process to a small number of controllable groups, democracy dies.

This is the cancer of democratic systems, and the reason why there are no long-running democracies.

Re:same as the US elections ...

[shellacked]

"It's just a matter of time before some lunatic figures out a way to game the system"

You mean like by buying up the majority of the media outlets and introducing political bias into news? What are the odds of *that* ever happening?

Re:same as the US elections ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and the reason why there are no long-running democracies..."

Umm...Iceland? IOM? Switzerland? There's a reasonable case to argue that England started to become a democracy under Elizabeth 1, and was certainly one since 1707.

Microsoft apologists say what?

[erroneus]

Among the many things I hear regularly from Microsoft apologists is that "everyone does it" or "that's the way things are done; right or wrong, good or bad..." Okay, I'd have to say that since these events are somewhat unprecedented, that it's safe to say that the "everyone does it" excuse isn't going to hold up.

Microsoft *IS* an unprecedentedly evil company bent on advancing its own aims at ANY and ALL costs regardless of the resulting chaos and damage that it may cause in its wake. They have clearly demonstrated that they don't care what harm they cause to anyone or anything else. Microsoft is my ex-wife!

Re:Microsoft apologists say what?

[nagora]

Microsoft *IS* an unprecedentedly evil company bent on advancing its own aims at ANY and ALL costs regardless of the resulting chaos and damage that it may cause in its wake.

Well, yes, they are. But it's hardly unprecedented. Most of the laws limiting what actions stock brokers can and can't do are a response to the mess that such companies caused in a free market back in the days of the Rail Barons. There are hundreds if not thousands of companies that would happily let children starve to death or die of AIDS etc. if they can make a quick buck out of it. That's what unregulated capitalism is all about, when you get down to it: pure Social Darwanism. That's part of the reason it doesn't work as a means of building any sort of civilised society, which in turn is why supporters of unrestrained capitalism have taken to denying the existance of society as a means of avoiding responsibility for the suffering and damage they leave, as you say, in their wake.

TWW

Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[GnarlyDoug]

They can fix this with some help.

1. Have IBM and other friendlies back a lot of shills for Prefeffed membership just like Microsoft did.

2. Once you have enough friendlies to make a quorum again, kick the shills out & return their money and fix the bylaws.

3. Back out the friendlies as well, and return the money back to them as well.

4. Problem solved. Continue one with a once again functional standards body.

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[spectecjr]

1. Have IBM and other friendlies back a lot of shills for Prefeffed membership just like Microsoft did.

What makes you think IBM didn't already have a bunch of people sitting in the ISO membership lists?

Assuming they didn't is kind of naive.

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[mjwx]

They can fix this with some help. 1. Have IBM and other friendlies back a lot of shills for Prefeffed membership just like Microsoft did. 2. Once you have enough friendlies to make a quorum again, kick the shills out & return their money and fix the bylaws. 3. Back out the friendlies as well, and return the money back to them as well. 4. Problem solved. Continue one with a once again functional standards body.

Your plan will almost always fall down around step 3

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[IWannaBeAnAC]

They didn't. That isn't a supposition, it is a fact. Towards the end, they did try to recruit some additional members to counter the influx of Microsoft-sponsored shills, and they certainly did a lot of lobbying, but a pre-built `standing army' of shills? No.

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[spectecjr]

They didn't. That isn't a supposition, it is a fact. Towards the end, they did try to recruit some additional members to counter the influx of Microsoft-sponsored shills, and they certainly did a lot of lobbying, but a pre-built `standing army' of shills? No.

Are you sure?

I hate to say it, but I don't trust IBM on this any more than I trust Microsoft on this. Microsoft's a newbie at the standards thing, IBM is an old hand. I fully expect IBM to have other, less obvious mechanisms to kick around the standards body - after all, they've been working that system for a long long time.

The standards orgs are political machines. Never trust a politician - even politicians who are techies.

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[IWannaBeAnAC]

The standards orgs are political machines. Never trust a politician - even politicians who are techies.

That is only partially correct; some standards are political - the vast majority are extremely mundane. This is true even of the ISO SC34 committee that voted on OOXML. Except for the exceptional event, the vast majority of the work of this committee is technicalities that have little political interest. Virtually all of the members of the committee are on it because they are experts in the field and are interested in it. There simply isn't enough political excitement in these committees to sustain a political shill in the long term. This is exactly the problem that TFA describes - none of the new members to the committee are at all interested in the day to day work because they have no technical interest in the subject matter. This isn't normal - and indeed the refusal to vote is grounds for being summarily removed from the committee, which is likely to happen real soon now. (Note that this won't affect the ballot resolution meeting at OOXML, the participation at that meeting is exactly those members that participated in the original ballot, irrespective of their future status on SC34.)

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[GnarlyDoug]

Not if IBM and the others want a standards body it won't. IBM or others could have done what MS did, but they didn't. If they try to keep it packed then the ISO standards body will die anyway and IBM and the others who actually want a standards body that the rest of the industry will accept will lose out. Worst case scenario if IBM et al didn't play ball is that the standards body ceases to function or be accepted. Not much different than their current state of affairs. If the computer industry wants to allow ISO to die then they can all go back to pushing their own propreitary systems. I'm betting they don't think that is in their own best interests. If they do think that Apple, the king of cool but proprietary, will win.

Re:Use the same tactics to fix the problem

[GnarlyDoug]

Fact is that the SC34 body gained 11 Participating members, and gained 29 total members since last year's count of only 9 Participating members. Those were mostly MS shills. Read more about it here if you wish.

It's good to be skeptical, but I think you bordered on cynicism. IBM is no knight in shining armor, but they have not been pulling these types of stunts. Fact is IBM has been around a long time as you point out, and they have probably learned that, when it comes to standards, it's better to play nice. If everyone sees a standards body as being useless or owned by one group then it will cease to have nearly as much influence. It's not like these ISO guys have guns and are going to force people to obey their recommendations. So while politics are bound to play a part, for the ISO recommendations to carry weight with industry there has to be perceived value and fairness from the members of industry who will decide if they will follow those recommendations. IBM and others who use the ISO standards as a way of finding mutual benefit have a vested interested in protecting the reputation of the ISO processes and bodies. Microsoft doesn't care so they crashed the party and did great harm to these same bodies.

You are misleading

[FranTaylor]

I would mod you down if I could. You throw out misleading statements left and right.

You say, "Word is a standard the way that FAT is a standard" The problem is, we are not talking about the word files that we've all grown to know and hate, we are talking about a new kind of word file that doesn't even exist yet.

Your choice to view the implementations in such a manner totally glosses over the fact that the Microsoft spec is woefully incomplete, there is no way for anyone besides Microsoft to actually implement it, unlike SPF and SenderID, which are relatively trivial network protocols.

You talk about defacto standards and the fact is that this is not even a defacto standard, as not even Microsoft has committed to implementing it. How can you have a defacto standard when there are no implementations?

What you are really saying is that Microsoft is going to jam this thing down our throats, whether we want it or not.

You are really just a troll, in the most insidious sort of way.

Re:You are misleading

[Zeinfeld]

Your choice to view the implementations in such a manner totally glosses over the fact that the Microsoft spec is woefully incomplete, there is no way for anyone besides Microsoft to actually implement it, unlike SPF and SenderID, which are relatively trivial network protocols.

There is something of a difference between facts and Slashdot assertions.

Most standards documents are not 100% accurate but there is a big difference between having something that is 95% correct and having to start from scratch. If someone implements the specification in good faith they will identify the errors and omissions from the spec when they try interoperation.

That is what we usually do at any rate. We did that with HTML which these days is pretty much at the same levdel of complexity as Office if you include all the secondary specs like MathML.

The objections are not being made because people think the spec is incomplete, the motivation is purely the continuation of Sun's anti-Microsoft jihad.

Patch Tuesday

[flyingfsck]

Don't worry ISO, Microsoft will release a patch for your process next Tuesday.

!(ISO == open == free)

[modulo]

In practical terms, anyway.

For example, consider CMIP (SNMP's big brother). In theory, anybody can implement standard X.711 and yipee! high-end management bliss.

So find me a toolkit that costs less than $30,000.

Makes a copy of Microsoft Office look pretty cheap, no?

Re:!(ISO == open == free)

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, consider CMIP (SNMP's big brother). In theory, anybody can implement standard X.711 and yipee! high-end management bliss. So find me a toolkit that costs less than $30,000.

So, you're complaining about the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE of a toolkit written to an OPEN STANDARD? I think you need to go back to Economics class.

Microsoft the psychochick

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, Microsoft sure acts like a psychochick...

Gotta hand this to M$

[Anonymous Coward]

They're bad -- but they're very good at being bad!

To the tune of Knights of the Round Table

[kwabbles]

A la Monty Python...

We're Members of the IMSSO,
We bash Bill when ere we're able,
We hate his bloat and legal scenes
And File Allocation Table.
We dine well here in Slashdot,
We eat grits and chips and bawls a lot.
We're Members of the IMSSO,
Our Vista hatred is formidable,
But many times, we're given rhymes
That are quite unsingable.
We're burning time in Slashdot,
We laugh at flying chairs
a looooooot.
In flame wars we're tough and able,
Quite indefatigable,
Between our WoW raids and tinfoil hats,
and mockery of what they call "stable".
Most of us know here at Slashdot,
Microsoft really sucks a lot!

Re:Very simple _alternative_ solution

[ancientt]

Says who?

More to the point, you can't break your own rules and expect to be taken seriously, even more so if you're a standards committee.

Alternatively, bribe/badger/coax enough new and old members in via whatever loopholes you can find in order to get the rules changed. After that, the new rules say you're out if you don't participate in at least 75% of the meetings called for by at least 10% of the membership. All legal and tidy and somehow fitting, use the loopholes to patch the loopholes, heck it's real life recursion.

Sounds like a good occasion...

[fgaliegue]

... To file a suit against Microsoft for deliberate obstruction to an international, public interest organisation... At the International Court of Justice in La Haye.

This court may not have that great an influence, but just for the symbolic value of it, I say the ISO should do it. Heck, the new P MSmembers need not even appear as defendants on this one.

And so MS Wins

[rben]

Microsoft wins, they have effectively destroyed the committee that stood in their way. Now they can claim it's ineffective, since it has become so, and find someone else to rubber-stamp their standard. Not a bad strategy, if you're an Evil Empire.

Calling P-members, Pmembers, P-MEMBERS!!

[jkrise]

The Emperor will just dissolve the Senate.

Emperor or Chair-Man?

"and none of the new members are bothering to vote, despite repeated pleas from the committee chair. "

They will not listen to the committee chair. If the Chair-Man shouts "P-members!, P-members!!, P-members!!!" .. .then they will all stand up and listen. They will even ask which way they should vote, and how much money they will get for doing so....

Your list is wrong

[marcosdumay]

Brazil is an observer, not a permanent member. I don't know the status of the other countries, but they were listed recently at /. and Grocklaw.

No OOXML as an ISO Standard Petition

[brufar]

http://www.noooxml.org/petition

If MS wants to put forth a standard File format for ISO approval, Thats just fine. Make them FIX the problems in their proposed standard before trying to ram it through..

Terrible

[Jon Peterson]

This is awful. A huge unwieldy process bound standards organisation is now unable to choose which huge unwieldy standard to give its support to.

"We were really hoping to get the spellcheck dictionary custom term event model moved from 2nd round consultation to initial pre-ratification, but because of byelaw 12 part c regarding type P participants, it looks like we'll be delayed until the *next* meeting of the syntax objects (editing mode) technical steering group. That could be months away." - said Gerhardt Steiner, an XML expert who is a regular voter and sits on several subcommittees.

"Well, I don't understand the fuss" said Sanjeev Raj, "We joined so that our small company that makes custom MSWord plugins for the pharmaceutical industry doesn't go out of business. We paid our membership fee so we could vote on the one technical aspect we care about. I'd love to vote on lots of other things by I've got a company to run."

It's that kind of attitude, says Gerhardt, that's undermining the whole process. "Everyone knows that these kinds of standards organisation are dominated by bearded loons dredged up from the R&D departments of fortune 500 companies, with a few tenured professors thrown in to keep them out of trouble. We work hard to invent hopelessly impractical standards that are overblown, overspecified and impossible to implement unless you are a fortune 500 company with a large R&D department. Even then, you usually have to get a tenured professor to come in and give you some expensive consultancy. It's a fair and equitable system. I think it's a real shame when people try to warp these standards processes for their own selfish financial ends."

Yes, I am a member of one of these committees. No I never vote.

The big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the bigger problem that MS can corrupt a vote so easily?

Hilarious

[jhRisk]

They appear to function based on the belief that their members have solely benevolent motives behind their participation. What are they smoking and can I have some? Anyway, I'm not entirely sure if that would be considered a committee, subcomittee, etc. and therefore cannot speak authoritatively regarding what the next course of action is. However, these are smart people and anyone who's done those maze puzzles knows that after 1st grade you can tell where there's a dead end without having to draw a line all the way to it. My point is that this does not grind to a halt but it does suck to see these continuous roadblocks. Read up on the fun here http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/International%20Standardization/ISO/ISOIECDirectivesPart1.PDFformat.pdf and note page 11 section 1.7.4.

Now onto the two most important matters IMHO

1. Making an educated decision in the best interest of everyone on this planet for this and all standards
2. Ensuring a full investigation is made into whether M$ did have something to do with the dramatic and last minute influx of P class members.

code base

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last FUCKING TIME! We are are talking about DOCUMENT FORMATS NOT CODE BASE! What does the data looks like on disk, not what the software that reads and write this data!! Sheesh!

Stop trolling.

Fucking moron.

Lies!

[chrono13]

Lies. Offensive and outrageous lies.

Microsoft would never bribe several countries to corrupt and invariably damage a well respected standards board just to get one of their formats certified as a standard. Microsoft is a large, wealthy, and well respected company known for integrity and trustworthiness. The users of Microsoft software trust Microsoft, even trusting them to install new updates to their computer monthly. With so many trusting Microsoft so implicitly, how could anyone even insinuate such outlandish accusations against the absolute cornerstone of the software field.

If such accusations were true, then what would follow? That their updates are untrustworthy or that Microsoft may update your system in a way that benefits only Microsoft and not their customer - you? To question Microsoft's intentions, trustworthiness and integrity would cast a foreboding shadow across the entire computer landscape. And placing their vast wealth and political power aside, Microsoft holds a massively dominate share of the market, and arguably has immense power on that basis alone.

No, I refuse to believe that Microsoft is anything but an example, a leader of exactly how a software company should succeed. All software firms looking to proser should look no further than Microsoft for a blueprint of success. We should encourage Microsoft by buying their products and debunking such baseless lies leveled against them in jealousy. Trust Microsoft. If you are running Windows, don't you already? Aren't you trusting them now? You use their software, you should trust them.

There is no reason to doubt Microsoft. They do not lie, they do not cheat. They got to where they are today by being the best, and selling the best, and treating their customers with respect, and earning their customers respect. The people, and governments, would not allow Microsoft to do the things it is accused of doing. No one would stand for it. If someone did not trust Microsoft, they would not use their software to bank, email, and hold some of their most valuable and private data secure. Don't hate Microsoft. Trust Microsoft. Microsoft has never done anything to deserve anything other than respect, admiration, trust, and the continued use and purchase of their products.

Thank you.