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

[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.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Emperor will just dissolve the Senate.

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.

gridlock

[User 956]

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

See that? American style democracy is popular overseas.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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...)

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

[greenreaper]

Here we go.

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: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.

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:That gives me an idea...

[Sodki]

It's FreeISO, you insensitive clod.

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: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.

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.

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!