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."

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

[greenreaper]

Here we go [networkmirror.com].

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.

No problem. Read the ISO manual

[Animats]

The "article" is just some blogger blithering. If you read the actual ISO rules [iso.org], 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: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 [wikipedia.org] 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: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 [iso.org] 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: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: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: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: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 [wikipedia.org] between ISO and IEC. It's only a subcommittee [wikipedia.org] 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: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: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.