Slashdot Mirror
Counter-Claims On Flaws In OOXML Meeting
ericatcw writes "Critics have charged that last week's ISO Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) to decide the fate of changes to Office Open XML standards proposal was too perfunctory and deviated from accepted ISO practices, possibly in an attempt to smooth the passage of the Microsoft format. This week, the ISO 'convener' of the BRM disputed those charges, saying that voting to dispose of 900 changes to the spec at once and allowing 'O' Observer countries to vote were the correct moves. ISO released a statement backing him up. Also, Patrick Durusau, editor of the competing OpenDocument Format specification and a late convert to OOXML's passage, also said that claims the process was flawed were overstated."
This OOXML standardization process was actually flawed from the begining.
It wasn't finished when ECMA submitted it to ISO for standardization (flaw 1). It was submitted as a fast-track process, which is clearly not appropriate, and ISO passed the fast-tracking anyway (flaw 2), the first vote was completely corrupted, with banana republics joining as "P" (as in "participating") members one or two weeks before the vote (flaw 3), even though the first vote raised more than 3,000 issues, they went ahead with the fast-tracking (flaw 4), all of them to be discussed and fixed at a 5 week meeting behind closed doors (flaw 5), where all 1,000 corrections were supposed to be discussed and agreed by consensus, but 900 of them were voted instead (flaw 6).
These are only some of the flaws of the process itself, not to mention the flaws of the text or of the format itself (issues with dates before 1900, unnecessary high complexity, bit-masks instead of XML, using proprietary formats for images [VML, DrawingML] and equations [OOML] instead of SVG and MathML).
I hope at least that sanity will prevail until the end of the month, and that the fast-tracking of this standard will be gloriously dropped!
So we have more than just allegations of companies being bribed to take up membership and vote for OOXML. Those same new members are conspicuous absentees when it came to voting for other matters.
And now this? The stench of corruption is unbearable.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Here:
http://consortiuminfo.org/
And Here:
http://www.groklaw.net/
Enjoy the links. I've been reading groklaw.net for about 5 years now. Worth every minute. I've been watching the OOXML/ODF process since the state of Massachusetts started talking about using some other format than MS Office. Dave Berlind broke the story on ZDNet.com of all places. I really enjoyed watching Microsoft and their allies work themselves up into a lather over the whole thing.
Seems that once governments started to think about lock-in, MS got interested in interoperability. I guess MS is really worried about shareholder lawsuits with claims that they didn't do *everything* they could to maintain share value. MS doesn't seem to get that the question for governments is how to maintain their sovereignty instead of MS shareholder value.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
OOXML by Microsoft? Isn't that the company that was facing anti-trust litigation world wide all those years ago? What the hell are they still doing around?
*sigh*
It wasn't broken until Microsoft specifically set out to break it, but ISO is screwed now doesn't have bylaws which allow it to fix itself. Microsoft has put it's finger on a button which tones the death bell for ISO, everyone is now in full damage control mode to disguise that fact ... but it's all in vain. If you give very small countries with corrupt governments disproportional voting power in international bodies your process will get corrupted. Look at FIFA.
- The time allowed for the BRM (1 week) was fixed by ISO rules for a fast track standard
- Attendees generally felt it was better to get most suggested changes in as were. It was better to make the changes even if they had reservations, rather than leave the text of MS OOXML in it's original form.
- All Participants were genuinely trying to improve the standard, regardless of their stance on ODF vs MS OOXML. Better to fix it as much as possible now, inc case it does become approved.
The failings of this BRM seem to stem from the following:Mr. Durusau,
I'm sorry but I have no idea how you can possibly believe what you wrote.
I've followed this fairly closely and am EXTREMELY ANGRY at the crap MS has pulled trying to force this through!
Microsoft has been talking out both sides of its mouth for the last 15 YEARS and up until about 6 months ago has shown no intent of changing their ways and you think that they have because they honestly want interoperability. !?!?! There is a reason almost noone who's done business with MS trusts them, and it ain't jealousy.
You need to read 'The Scorpion and the Frog'. But MS will not sting you until you've carried them across the river (voted YES on dis29500).
They might be hearing you but they are NOT listening. They'll nod their heads and look like they're interested in what you're saying, but if (God forbid) this bullshit format gets accepted as an ISO standard, they will go back to their old way of doing things. Go peek at the anti-trust transcripts.
They threw some table scraps on the floor and you think they're welcoming you to the table and are going to treat you like an equal. Seriously? Seriously!?!?!
If they want OOXML to be an ISO spec, they need to go through the normal route. No fast track!
> And, it would give Microsoft
> developers, many of who are members of national bodies,
> an important forum where Microsoft has
> been shown to listen and respond to their concerns.
>
The conciliar tone of this response makes some fundamental errors:
1) The fallacy of lowering the bar: We could ensure that almost everyone has a medical degree by changing the medical degree exams to a potty training exam. Of course, if that were to happen, a medical degree wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. Similarly, if a poorly documented, incomplete, sparsely reviewed (ODF's review took *years*), heavily manipulated standard proposal, is allowed to pass ISO, how credible would ISO standards be? If Patrick is sincere in wanting OOXML to pass as a proper standard, he'd propose that OOXML be sent back for a complete review.
2) The fallacy of appeasement to encourage reform: If Microsoft is unwilling to have OOXML go through at least as rigorous a review as ODF before standardization, then how on earth can Patrick expect that they'll hang around after standardization. One OOXML is standard, the pressure is off. If he *really* believes Microsoft is serious about standardizing OOXML, then disapproval would do nothing other than allow for OOXML to undergo a *real* review to iron out all the details.
3) The fallacy of "Let's just do this once...Never again, I promise": If you let Microsoft off the hook this time, how on earth can we turn them or any other major company down again?
4) The fallacy of assuming that OOXML is any good. Joel (a key former Microsoft developer) justified why OOXML is so complicated ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.htm l) and why no-one, even Microsoft is able to implement it from scratch (they use code from old versions of Windows). If OOXML is virtually impossible to implement, then what good is it?
5) The fallacy that OOXML solves any real need. There are virtually no OOXML documents out there (even if you include the various OOXML-like formats exported from MS-Office) so the "backwards compatibility" mandate. OOXML presents no other mandate other than getting the ISO stamp so Microsoft can get contracts that require ISO standards. If there's something legitimate missing in ODF, then it should be added to ODF, otherwise OOXML is pointless. And if "backwards compatibility" required, then DOC would make a *much* better thing to standardize for legacy data given that it's been frozen since Office 2000, it's been reverse engineered to death by OpenOffice and many other Office competitors, and most documents out there are (unfortunately) in the DOC format. Why isn't any effort spent on fixing a *real* need as opposed to a fake one?
Being "fair and balanced" is often the most popular position, but if a thief comes into your house and claims all your money, you'd be a fool or a wimp to settle on the "fair and balanced" approach of choose to splitting the difference. If ISO doesn't have the backbone to reject OOXML from fast track so it can be resubmitted for proper review at least as thorough as ODF, then ISO *will* be broken....which is just fine according to Microsoft since when you have no standards you can trust, defacto market standards win.
Your processes may have been sufficient before this point; however, this is no longer the case. Your lack of transparency is unacceptable henceforth, and radical improvements in this area are demanded.
FWIW.
Microsoft is only going to start listening when people talk with their wallets. Until then, whatever EU does will only make them use big words as interoperability while disguising their efforts to lock in people to their products.
That's why we should say NO to Microsoft.
Start by saying NO to Internet Explorer and saying YES to Firefox. You won't regret it.
Say NO to Outlook, and say YES to Mozilla Thunderbird, or start using GMail.
Then, try to install Open Office along with Microsoft Office, although you may have problems opening some old documents, in general Open Office has very good quality. Open Office default format is the ISO standard ODF, which is gaining momentum and will start to have mass adoption after OOXML flops in this fiasco.
Say NO to Microsoft's Silverlight, since it's just another attempt to hijack the web. Developers, stick to Flash. Users, refuse installing the plugin and complain to the webmasters whenever you visit a site that requires it.
Say NO to Microsoft's XPS, since PDF is ubiquitous and it's an ISO standard as well.
And finally, if you've come so far, you should start saying NO to Windows and saying YES to Ubuntu. You may be impressed.
I'm not trolling here, this is not open source zealotry. It's only the realisation that Microsoft will only improve if there's competition, and there won't be any competition unless people start realising they have alternatives. Just look at IE, Microsoft didn't improve it at all, until it started having competition from Firefox, which by now has 25% market share for browsers, thanks to people who adopt it and spread the word. It's time we give them reason to do the same with their Office suite and Operating System as well.
The car analogy in particular was right on.
The ISO just does not understand that once you are under the microscope, defending your poor choices and covering up just causes loss of face and trust.
No one is buying the spin!
If they had reacted properly to the stacking of votes in the first place, they would have gained credibility. Now it looks like they are just pupets that can be bought by big multinationals.
I used to respect them, but now I know the good work that has come through them is because of the member countries being diligent, not from any intrisic goodness of the ISO.
I was involved with the C committee during the work on C9X.
The process described here shows essentially no similarity to a real standardization process. We have established, conclusively, that OOXML is not ready to be called a standard; it needs serious revision and work. The only time a "fast-track" process makes sense is when a standard is widely implemented and in use as a de facto standard, and is known to be workable.
It does not make sense when the "standard" is known not to be workable, has been implemented at most once, and there are literally thousands of unresolved comments, questions, or concerns -- many of them, as reported previously, impossible to resolve without the addition of huge chunks of new text to the specification.
It took years to get the C standard, about a tenth the size of OOXML, to a state where we could in good conscience vote to adopt it as an actual standard.
This process is an insult to standardization, and that the Microsoft-paid folks are talking about it as though it were a success leaves me utterly stunned. I can't decide whether to ascribe such claims to malice, incompetence, or both.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
As PJ commented:
"So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they have not, and I know they have not."
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080305124744293
Extracted from http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/03/02/On-OOXML:
"Standards Process Abuse: Microsoft decided, rather than working to produce a harmonized standard by enhancing ODF to add MS-Office-specific features, to re-invent the world from scratch. This seems wrong.
ECMA, which claims to be a serious standards organization, blessed the process of generating a XML dump of the internal data format and publishing it in six thousand poorly-edited pages, in well under a year. This seems wrong.
ISO allowed ECMA to submit this on their fast-track process with breathtaking obliviousness to the existence of other standards and lack of concern for harmonization. This seems wrong.
ISO allowed the draft to be substantially edited and enhanced after the initial ballot. This seems wrong.
It tried to repair the damage by stuffing 120 people in a room in Geneva for five days to address a thousand changes to the spec. This seems wrong."
omg, twitter is linking to roy shitsforwitz now! when he's ignoring the trolls! but replying to them! bravado! the end is nigh!!
Some of my posts have been modded down because I say Companies have a responsibility to behave ethically. People as well.
The problem is that years ago, "unethical" behavior was a black mark on your reputation and "proper" business didn't operate that way. Well, it did when it could, but there was a sensitivity to unethical behavior that sort of made people think twice before doing scummy things.
These days, neither companies nor people value ethics. They are viewed as quaint little rules. If it isn't illegal, then it is "legal." So, hey!! do what ever you wish as long as it is not illegal. Well, illegal too if you're pretty sure you won't get caught. If you do get caught, stand at a podium with your wife and apologize.
The ISO standards process, as well as so many other "professional" organizations, depend and rely on ethics. Microsoft has proved time and again it has no ethics. So we have a process set up to rely on honorable people behaving honorably for the common good, defenseless against an unethical vandal.
Had this been an earlier time, this behavior would have cost Microsoft, these days, you can almost imagine people laughing at the balls it takes to pull shit like this, never thinking about how this behavior is corrupting business, and law, and society.
If Microsoft is unwilling to have OOXML go through at least as rigorous a review as ODF before standardization, then how on earth can Patrick expect that they'll hang around after standardization. One OOXML is standard, the pressure is off.
Doesn't anyone remember Microsoft's response to FIPS-151?
You know, the "POSIX Subsystem" in NT? The one that's so useless that there have been three independent re-implementations of POSIX functionality on top of the WIN32 subsystem instead? Microsoft eventually bought a company that did their own *extension* of the POSIX subsystem into something that was actually usable for real work, but they released it reluctantly and in an obscure package, and only use it where they have to (for example in the Hotmail conversion to NT). They won't even take advantage of it where it can solve real security problems for them (for example by taking on the "exec" API to resolve the recurring problems with ShellExecute in Win32).
And that's something with strong and continuing customer demand!