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

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Emperor will just dissolve the Senate.

gridlock

[User 956]

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

See that? American style democracy is popular overseas.

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

[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.

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

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.