Where did you go, publicity, what have you become, transparency?
22 11 2007Recently the Ecma announced that they would be posting their first set of answers to the comments made by the national standardization committees on OOXML. The Ecma claims this first set covers about 19% of the comments. While I appreciate the reactivity of the Ecma in these matters, I can’t help but notice both the lack of transparency and the laconism of the early responses of the Ecma on OOXML.
As a member of the Afnor committee in charge of OOXML, I am expecting to receive a full copy of the answers from the Ecma, and I understand these are underway. But from what I can see on the Ecma web site, I see simply no public, open and for that matter transparent process of thinking and writing of the answers to the comments made on OOXML made by the national boards. Sorry, I may have missed a chapter here but I find it highly surprizing that there is not a single line of discussion, let alone email threads between two or more experts from the Ecma debating what answer to any given comment should be. If you find such evidence, please forward it to me.
What I see however, is a set of press releases (here and there) announcing the future publication of these answers and the outdated set of answers to the early comments made during the fast track period of OOXML. Those answers and the document are of course obsolete by now.
This lack of publicity reminds me of some fundamental characteristics of any open standard: their development should be public, open, and accessible to all. This is obviously not the case here. Or else what could justify the “veiling” of this work phase by the Ecma? I don’t see why the writing of the expected answers should be closed to public… My humble advice to the Ecma: it looks like you or some of your members are afraid of publicizing your thought process and the reflections on the improvement of OOXML. Because you are of course working towards improving OOXML, aren’t you?
Last but not least, I am under the impression that what I will receive from the Ecma as part of the Afnor committee is not the whole set of answers, but the set of answers to the particular comments sent by the Afnor. And there I have a problem with that. It may seem picky, but when you come to think of it, it’s not. After the 2nd of September the list of comments made by every national standardization body that had voted was widely available on the Internet. Experts and committees, journalists, concerned citizens were thus able to learn from that list and discover things they may not have realized, or at least, form an educated opinion out of it. Now, if the Ecma sends to each committee the answers to its own comments, there will be no more opportunity to get a broad overview of Ecma’s answers. I would like to have such a document because it helps gaining a better understanding of Ecma’s answers and of the issues they’re fixing (or are refusing to fix).
Some evil geniuses and professional critics have objected behind the scenes that this was a cunning move designed to divide and conquer, to put barriers on the standardization committees in order to make it difficult for them to gain a deeper understanding of the situation. My friends from the other side of the Cascade Range will have guessed that I’m being perhaps hypnotized by the HCCOTAMAEAC (High Command Center Of The Anti-Microsoft And Everything American Conspiracy). But regardless of how much turkey I haven’t been eating in this Thanksgiving Holiday, which went completely unnoticed in France, I find it seriously disturbing that the Ecma does not let anybody access and read the “answering process” on OOXML and takes great caution at splitting its answers to each national committees. Secrecy, in that matter, helps no one.
This new “secrecy” is interesting. There is absolutely nothing in ISO or JTC1 rules that would prevent Ecma from making their proposed resolution of comments public. Nothing.
Compare to ODF. While developing the ODF standard, the ODF TC’s mailing list was public, the comments received during the public comment period were public, the comments received during the ISO review are public, and OASIS’s resolution of these comments are public. But OOXML? All of these things are secrets.
What can we tell from this? We can infer that Microsoft believes that its chances of approval are greater if no one knows what they are doing. An open standard? I don’t think so.
It is not an ECMA-dicission not to disclose the disposition of comments - it is an ISO/IEC-rule. Also, you will find, that AFNOR will have access to the disposition of comments given to e.g. Denmark as well as their own, so the “divide and conquer” conspiracy is not correct.
:o)
To Jesper:
Can you point me to the ISO rule in question? Rob Weir is stating the exact contrary of what you’re saying.
As for the disclosure of the whole set of comments, as I said, I’m waiting to receive the comments and then I will ask to see the other comments sent to the other committees and we’ll see if that’s possible.
Thanks!
Charles,
I am beginning to wonder if I am wrong about the JTC1-directives, but I will try to dig a bit deeper into the rules. I stumpled over section 13.5 in the JTC1 directives, and it says (amongs other things):
“The JTC 1 Secretariat shall circulate the comments and the disposition of such comments to JTC 1
National Bodies and the ITTF will include this information with the fast-track ballot for the transparency of
the process.”
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/2489/186491/186605/Jtc1_Directives.pdf?nodeid=3959538&vernum=0
So maybe the bottom line is this:
yes - ISO/IEC project editor is required to circulate disposition of comments (only) to NBs
but also
no - there is nothing preventing the NBs of making the dispositions public.
Rob - you seem to be more well into the legal stuff than I - is this a correct assessment?
/Jesper
My observation is that what Ecma is making available now is not an official JTC1 document. It hasn’t been submitted to JTC1, it hasn’t been given a document number or entered into the document registry. It is certainly not the official Disposition of Comments report. It is really just Ecma’s draft proposed disposition of comments. The secrecy of Ecma’s draft is entirely Ecma’s invention.
Rob,
The problem with what you are saying is, that is sounds so true. But if you are correct with the absence of ISO-rules requiring secrecy, there are in effect no rules to abide by.
So what is preventing you from making the dispositions public? Why don’t you do us all a favour and, in the name of information freedom, call one of your IBM-collegues in one of the many national bodies IBM participates in and ask them for the dispositions? When will we be able to download the entire set from the IBM website?
Don’t you think it’s about time to put action behind your (many) words?
/Jesper
to Jesper:
perhaps what we could say is that what is needed here is clarity and not cutting the beast in pieces
Now, what I see in your last post is an attack to Rob personally. I do hope you will behave in the future, Jesper.
Thank you.
Charles,
Let me first say, that there is to me a big difference between attacking a person and critizicing the words, letters and actions of a person. I would never make a personal attack on Rob - how could I? I have never met Rob. However, I will continue to question his motives on this debate, since they are - to me - not entirely pure.
You say, that what we need is clarity - and you are perfectly right. We need clarity, insight and good discussions. Sadly, Rob, to me, brings none of the above. Instead he brings uncertainty and doubt to the entire process and Rob effectively carries wood to the ongoing “war” between “Bad and evil Microsoft” and “open source zealots”. I do not think this is beneficial to the discussions about DIS 29500.
About Robs claims:
1. The “secrecy” of the dispositions of comments is not a decision of ECMA - it is a decision of ISO/IEC. Therefore Rob should direct his comments to ISO/IEC and not ECMA. I will not speculate to why Rob has chosen to do otherwise, but if I were in Rob’s shoes, I would find ECMA a much easier and better target than ISO/IEC. This is exactly the same behaviour we saw (not necessarily from Rob) during Summer 2007, where ECMA was critiziced of hammering through a 5-month ballot period for OOXML, which was supposedly too short. However - this was not a one-sided ECMA-decision but due to ISO-directives (check out JTC1 directives, section 9.8).
2. The problem with ISO-directives (and maybe the ones for JTC1 in particular) is that they can be read with a large degree of interpretation. So when Rob claims that it is a problem with the draft dispositions not being an official JTC1-document, I am sure that he can find somewhere in the directives, that support his claim. But I stumpled over this paragraph in JTC1-directives 5ed v3.0:
9.9 Discussion during ballot period
When a document is out for ballot at Stage 3 or higher, NB/Liaison organisations are free to circulate their
comments to other NBs provided they do not use the formal SC or JTC 1 documentation distribution system.
Formal distribution is prohibited because it could create confusion as to the status of the ballot. Documents out
for ballot at Stage 3 or higher are not to be subject to formal discussion at any working level of JTC 1 during the
balloting period. Therefore, NB positions on the document under ballot are not to be formally discussed at any
working level.
A Fast-track DIS is at “level 3 or higher” so this effectively tells me that Rob is demanding something that is simply not possible. I am sure that someone will reply and say “Well, technically DIS29500 is not out for ballot anymore, so this paragraph does not apply”, but I am sure that you can see my point.
Charles, I fully respect that this is your blog and that you can do with it as you see fit. I know that I am here only as a guest and just stumpled into a discussion with Rob. However, I truly believe that the very idea of blogs is discussions and challenging each other’s minds. This has to be done, of course, with respect of each other’s integrity, thoughts and ideas but I maintain that I have not attacked Rob as a person but simply questioned his motives and challenged his words and thoughts.
I hope you see it the same way.
Charles,
Alex Brown, govenor of the BRM in Geneva today wrote on his blog:
“Ecma are keeping this process confidential on the instructions of ISO/IEC. I’ve not looked into this in detail but I suppose the problem is not so much that the discussions themselves between Ecma and the NBs should be confidential, but that if they were conducted in public the 2 September ballot response document (which is a JTC 1 document) would effectively be made public (as it was, erroneously, for a while anyway).”
It seems to me that the link to section 9.9 of JTC1 directives is pretty clear.
I will leave you with a quote from one of the greatest fairytale writers, Hans Christian Andersen, coming from a little boy shouting at the emporor:
“Jamen, han har jo ikke noget på!”
(eng: but, he has nothing on at all)
Jesper,
wrt to Alex’s blog: I cannot find the reference, but anyway, I’d like to point out something important: regardless of the actual ISO / JTC-1 process, my critic is much more “existential” to OOXML: I’m talking about the actual drafting of the answers by the Ecma. I expect this process to take place at the Ecma. (Note that at this stage the JTC-1 is not involved). Well this process, since it is supposed to take place inside the Ecma, regularly falls into the category of the development of the Ecma standard, and thus is publicly accessible by all. Today that’s not the case. Take a look at the Ecma TC 45 and you will see nothing, no public records of mailing lists and discussion about this drafting of answers. That, to me, makes the point of a “publicly developed standard” and thus of an open standard invalid, since the very basic specificity of an open standard is to be publicly developed. That’s what I find disturbing.
Now, if you don’t mind, take a look at that link, to go back to our JTC -1 discussion: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0950.htm
You will see several candidates for standardization. All of the comments and answers are publicly available, except for the one of OOXML. I’m not discussing the JTC-1 guidelines which as you pointed out, may leave room for interpretation. I’m just witnessing a situation that I don’t find to be very compatible with the values put forth in our context.
Charles,
I believe you are wrong on several points, thus making your argument false.
1. You expect the drafting of the comments to take place at the ECMA.
This is not correct. When the ballot was denied in September, a ballot resolution meeting was scheduled and an editor of the proposed standard was appointed by ISO/IEC. This is Mr. Rex Jaeschke. It is hhis job and responsibility to address the comments accompanying the votes. Of course he is helped by ECMA, but it is by the provision of JTC1. So indeed JTC1 is deeply involved here and they really call the shots.
2. Not a publicly developed standard
Well, the JTC1-directives are actually pretty clear here. No JTC1-document is to be officially released to the public in the ballot period - not even the proposed text itself. As Alex Brown puts it, rules are rules and these are no longer an ECMA-question - they are an ISO/IEC-question. This has nothing to do with OOXML itself - ODF would have had to abide by exactly the same rules if the initial ballot had ben rejected.
3. The ISO/IEC-website
I do not see the “several candidates for standardization” in the page you referred to. The list contains various kinds of letters and issues to vote on e.g. acceptance of the Xml Guild as Liason A-organization and updates of various working groups (WGs). These are the “every-day” questions you in AFNOR and other NBs as the Danish have to deal with as part of your work in ISO/JTC1/SC34. I do not see these as relevant here.
I think you and I see eye-to-eye on the problems with the dispositions of comments not being public. I also think that the ones to benefit of this secrecy is really not ECMA but the anti-OOXML-lobby. They will be able to continue to raise uncertainty and doubt about the process because no official document of the work exists. And ECMA will not be able to respond to these since they cannot be made public. If you ask me - it is a loose/loose situation
.
As you say, it is hard to 100% definitive when referring to JTC1-directives, since some of them seem to be mutually exclusive :-). However, I also think that it makes absolutely no sense to blame ECMA for lack of openness (in this stage of the standardization process) and at the same time refusing to discuss the JTC1-directives that actually control how this process is carried out.
PS: Are you going to Kyoto next week for the ECMA-meeting and ISO/JTC1-meeting?
“PS: Are you going to Kyoto next week for the ECMA-meeting and ISO/JTC1-meeting?”
Are you?
Charles,
Ahem - this might sound a bit cryptic, but the Danish standardization body has chosen not to disclose the names of the people participating in the work. They have disclosed the names of their respective companies/organizations, but not their names.
What I can tell you is that the company I work for, CIBER Danmark, is going to Kyoto to participate on the last day of the ECMA-meeting as well as the ISO/IEC SC34 plenary on December 8th.
Remember, OOXML is not out for ballot. The ballot closed Sept 2nd. I don’t know how it works in other NB’s, but in the US we’re reading the Ecma proposes responses directly from the Ecma web site. They are never touching ISO’s hands. It is directly from Ecma to the NB. ISO isn’t touching them. ISO is not archiving them (which is required for 20 years for any real ISO document). ISO is not distributing them. So how can anyone say that ISO is requiring secrecy?
Rob,
Let’s see what the JTC1-directives say about this. In section HD, “Document Access Classification List”, a list of document classification types are accompanied by their respective access restrictions. I have picked the ones I think are relevant for this discussion (please let me know, if there are more):
Text for DIS ballot (Fast Track document) [Def]
Text for FDIS ballot (not sure about this one) [Def]
Revised DIS text for review (Fast Track/PAS
document) [Def]
Disposition of Comments [P,Def]
Instructions to editor [P, Def]
The letters in sharp brackets are the access identifiers. ‘P’ means paper access for those without www-access.
Now, if you look at what “Def” means, it says:
“Defined-access FTP or WWW site
(access limited to participants in the ISO system*)”
The asterix points to a section with the text:
“* The ISO standardisation process encourages the widest possible dissemination of the working documents
needed for preparing standards free of charge within the ISO system to ensure that all interested parties have the
opportunity to contribute to the development of a standard. In this context, the ISO system should be understood
to mean the member bodies of ISO, specifically those who have elected to be P-members of a particular ISO
committee (although O-members and non-members are entitled to receive documentation on request), liaison
organisations, the delegates accredited by ISO members and liaison organisation to participate in committee
meetings, experts appointed to ISO working groups, members of national committees corresponding to an ISO
committee and their sponsoring organisations (e.g. trade associations, government departments, etc.).
ISO/TC/SC working documents are not intended for free distribution outside the ISO system as defined above. It
may be noted that the POCOSA agreement allows the member bodies to sell TC/SC working documents to those
outside the system.”
Well, the more I work with the ISO-system and rules, the more I realize how closed it actually is … but, Rob - how is the above snippets from JTC1-directives not relevant here?
Also - you say that the US NB reads the disposition of comments directly off the ECMA-website, so why don’t you put everyone at ease and tell us if you have access to the comments of the other NBs? Maybe it would let Charles sleep better at night.
Again, these documents we are discussing are not JTC1 working documents. They do not fit into any of the above categories. All of the categories you listed would be given official JTC1 “N” numbers and would be required to be stored by JTC1 and archived .
These documents have no status in JTC1 at all. They are being distributed entirely outside of the JTC1 process and are not being touched by JTC1 at all. They are directly from Ecma to NB’s. So JTC1 can have nothing to say on them. There is such a thing as sovereignty. A NB is a member of JTC1, but they are their own body. JTC1 cannot tell them that documents they receive from a 3rd party outside of the JTC1 process are protected.
Maybe my explanation about the secret liking work done by Ecma could help a little bit to understand what is actually going on around DIS 29500. I’m trying to give a more elaborated explanation in a new blog http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/
since yesterday 27/11.
First remark is that everything related to DIS 29500 is happening in ISO/IEC and its National Bodies at the moment, and totally under their control. Ecma has formally no say in the ISO/IEC process, and has even not the status of an NB.
Submission of a Fast Track proposal to ISO/IEC JTC 1 means literally that you give the document in their hands. Once the FT process is running, you/Ecma cannot stop it anymore, or change its flow. Everything is judged and done by the ISO/IEC rules.
Secondly, it is the role and the work of the Ballot Resolution Meeting to resolve all comments raised by the 87 NBs during the 5-month ballot. To do that in one week with very likely more than 100 people in the room seems to me not to stand a chance. But that’s the ISO/IEC rule.
Thirdly, having done over 250 FT submissions in the last twenty years, also Ecma knows the ISO/IEC rules, and problems. So, Ecma has decided to do some unsollicited work, actually quite a lot of work, by making a PROPOSAL how each of the comments might be resolved. Of course, it must be left to the BRM to do with those proposals what it wants: the BRM is a unique event, a meeting of delegates of NBs, with decision power on the disposition of each comment, as it is called.
The problem for Ecma is now how to get these proposals in the ISO/IEC circuit. This is done by a special portal that is only accessible by NBs: only they get a username and password for that. A press release from Ecma has announced that on
October 18, 2007.
Each of the 87 NBs can then view all comments, not only that of their own NB.
The first batch of 662 proposed dispositions is there i.e., accessible by NBs only in the ISO/IEC circuit.
Ecma hopes, of course, that this unsollicited work will make the BRM more effective and more efficient.
Ecma has also experience that this was always the case in earlier FT standards.
There is one more interesting unsollicited phenomenon where the Ecma press release states that: ‘Ecma has taken the additional step of offering a communication channel where National Bodies may send feedback to the proposed dispositions of their comments and dialogue with the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Editor.’
I hope this helps.
But then why can’t ECMA just publish its unsollicited comments, a document identical to the one submitted to ISO. Even if the ISO document is confidential, ECMA is free to leak its own submission, right? Or resolve the comments in a public manner. The claim does not hold that ECMA is obliged to be secret because of ISO.
Jan,
> I hope this helps.
It does :-),
Thanks
/Jesper
@Jesper
I’m sorry, but I really don’t see where you find an obligation of secrecy in the extracts of JTC1 rules you quoted above :
- “…Liaison organisations are free to circulate their comments to other NBs provided they do not use the formal SC or JTC 1 documentation distribution system.”
“Formal distribution is prohibited…”
Clearly, this says that ECMA is *FREE TO CIRCULATE* their comments in an informal way. Only *FORMAL* distribution is prohibited.
- “The ISO standardisation process encourages the widest possible dissemination of the working documents needed for preparing standards free of charge within the ISO system to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to contribute to the development of a standard.”
Clearly, ISO encourages the *WIDEST POSSIBLE* dissemination of the working documents.
My understanding is exactly opposite to your conclusions !
@Jesper
Let’s have a closer look at the last extract you quoted :
“The ISO standardisation process encourages the widest possible dissemination of
the working documents … *FREE OF CHARGE* within the ISO system”
“ISO/TC/SC working documents are not intended for *FREE* distribution outside
the ISO system as defined above. It may be noted that the POCOSA agreement
allows the member bodies to *SELL* TC/SC working documents to those outside the
system.”
My understanding is that the purpose of this text is not about *availability* of
the documents, but about the *associated costs*.
Dissemination of the docs must be free of charge to people inside the system.
It is allowed to ask money to people outside the system. In both case, the
documents remain available to anybody, but some people *could* have to pay for
accessing the documents. To ask for some money surely made sense when postal
mail was used to distribute paper documents.
@Jan
Thanks to let us know what are your views on this.
Somehow it does not help.
You are still not catching the crux of the issue: where does the drafting process of these answers (sollicited or unsollicted) take place? At the Ecma, nobody denies that…
Farewell then. Hence the question that is still left unanswered: why are these answers not publicly available or at least the process of drafting them?
The issue of bringing them back in the ISO loop is secundary here, although it calls for some interesting remarks . What I want to know at first is why this process is not public, as this process takes place not inside the ISO, not by the ISO, but inside the Ecma (TC 45) and by Ecma.
The while comments thread and the answer from Mr Van den Beld simply do not answer that question.
Luc,
“Clearly, this says that ECMA is *FREE TO CIRCULATE* their comments in an informal way. Only *FORMAL* distribution is prohibited.”
Yes - but they have been asked by ISO/IEC not to - is it so difficult to understand?
“Clearly, ISO encourages the *WIDEST POSSIBLE* dissemination of the working documents.”
Yes - within the ISO-system consisting of its members - the national bodies.
“My understanding is exactly opposite to your conclusions !”
Well - I am not surprised that you interpret it in another way than I … are you ?
Jan put it very clearly:
“First remark is that everything related to DIS 29500 is happening in ISO/IEC and its National Bodies at the moment, and totally under their control. Ecma has formally no say in the ISO/IEC process, and has even not the status of an NB.
Submission of a Fast Track proposal to ISO/IEC JTC 1 means literally that you give the document in their hands. Once the FT process is running, you/Ecma cannot stop it anymore, or change its flow. Everything is judged and done by the ISO/IEC rules.”
why don’t you listen to this?
We all would like the comments to be broadly available (allthough, based on the hysteric out-cry towards ECMA I am sensing a beginning personal difference of opinion), but this is not an ECMA decision - it is an ISO/IEC-decision. If you want to throw dirt of someone, fine with me … but do it at ISO/IEC where it belongs.
Could it be that the reason for not wanting to throw dirt at ISO/IEC is that some of it might land on ODF?
And finally: Rob, why doesn’t IBM make the draft disposition of comments available to everyone off the IBM website? Since you say that there are no rules - what is stopping you?
@ Jesper
“They have been asked by ISO/IEC not to - is it so difficult to understand?”
What is difficult to understand is why ISO/IEC would make this request. It does not seems to be part of their written rules. Do you know who from ISO made the request, and the reason given ?
“Once the FT process is running […] Everything is judged and done by the ISO/IEC rules.”
UK maintained a publicly readable wiki to prepare their comments, and nobody claimed that this was against the ISO/IEC rules. So obviously such an openness *IS WITHIN* the ISO/IEC rules.
“If you want to throw dirt of someone, fine with me … but do it at ISO/IEC where it belongs.”
First, I don’t want to throw dirt to anybody. Second, my two posts were about the text of the ISO/IEC rules, so the discussion is already exactly were it belongs. Finally, you are right that any dirt thrown at ISO is landing on all the ISO standards. It is surely not what I want. (Rather, I find it a pity that some people are so happy to undermine the whole ISO process, but this is another discussion).
@Jan
You said:
“Ecma has taken the additional step of offering a communication channel where National Bodies may send feedback to the proposed dispositions of their comments and dialogue with the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Editor.”
I wonder if all people that have access to the Ecma suggested edits on the submitted comments will actually decide to use this channel or if they will find a more public place to give their ‘feedback’ on the proposed edits.
Luc
“What is difficult to understand is why ISO/IEC would make this request.”
Yes - and I would also wish, that ISO/IEC would explain it a bit further. One explanation could be, that even though the very public discussion of DIS29500 helped process the comprehensive text, a lot of the critique was based merely on feelings and hearsay. The discussions taking place now are of a different nature and it could be that ISO/IEC is trying to keep the treatment of the dispositions of comments on a more fact-based approach than the discusions in Summer 2007.
“UK maintained a publicly readable wiki to prepare their comments, and nobody claimed that this was against the ISO/IEC rules.”
Well - the comments from UK was in fact their comments and the Danish NB also made theirs public so I don’t see the what you are trying to say. Quite a few NBs made their comments public.
“So obviously such an openness *IS WITHIN* the ISO/IEC rules.”
If you say so - and so does Rob. This is why I keep asking Rob, why he doesn’t put actions behind his words and make the comments public on www.ibm.com . My quess is that he doesn’t, because IBM benefits more from the dispositions being secret - so the frenzy can continue) than if they were made public.
… but this is naturally just speculation on my part
/Jesper
Publicity, transparency, time to ponder (on) proposed dispositions,
would Ecma object ?
The only correct answer is NO.
Of course, Ecma is trying to make ALL its proposals how to resolve the different comments to DIS 29500 public. But Ecma has also been a loyal ISO/IEC Liaison for over 46 years. Then you have long overcome the temptation to try to win a point by taking the other by surprise.
It is simply much better to play according to the rules, as agreed by the community of NBs in JTC 1 and other places in ISO/IEC. Why have rules, and not follow them? Just to repeat the spirit of the JTC 1 Directives tells you:
“The JTC 1 Directives require the Summary of Voting and associated NB comments be protected documents, with defined “access limited to participants in the ISO system”. This is the basis for the requirement for user IDs and passwords to access the website. It is not possible to waive this requirement”.
Consequently, Ecma is not constrained in posting its interim responses on a publicly available page as long as they are not tied to specific NB comments. In other words, Ecma would have to do some work to separate the proposed responses from the specific NB comments, but then Ecma may make its work publicly visible. If there is so much interest outside the NB circuit, then Ecma will surely do something here.
Once again, concerning the Fast-Track, and also other processes, try to look through the glasses of ISO/IEC. As I blogged on November 27 in more detail: the whole FT process is an ISO/IEC process, NOT an Ecma process. See http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-observations-as-result-of-ecmas.html
Additional information that explains what is happening is that the current phase of the process is NOT on ISO/IEC level. It is also NOT on ISO/IEC JTC 1 level, but it is controlled by one of the Sub-Committees of JTC 1, i.e., SC34 on Document Description and Processing Languages. SC34 decides on the distribution of the unsolicited proposals from Ecma, following the spirit of the JTC 1 Directives. SC34 organizes the BRM, etc. The JTC 1 JTC 1 Directives tell you more about this in clause 13. And Ecma has also a Liaison with SC34.
Indeed, seen from Ecma there is nothing that forbids Ecma to distribute its proposals. But it should also be clear, in the light of the longstanding relationship, that it is not a MUST for Ecma to do this. Good habits and rules have a value, like in any great game, such as football. And also there the rules and habits don’t change overnight because somebody has another, maybe even brilliant idea.
By the way, some people wonder why Ecma is presenting its proposals in the way it is done. Some people call that ‘inconvenient’, or are using English words that maybe do not well translate in my mother tongue. Well, that is simple because there is an ISO/IEC template prescribing a certain lay-out. But everybody is free to do a little bit of sorting to kick duplicates out, and to sort them on whatever sub-key. But the BRM will use the template that is familiar to the National Bodies. And it is the responsibility of the NBs to propose dispositions themselves – at the end of the ballot preferably – and to ponder on the proposed dispositions that will come – in batches – from Ecma. There are not only proposals coming from Ecma, proposals can also come from NBs. And correspondence about proposals between Ecma/Editor of DIS 29500 and NBs is also a possibility. Others, not active in NBs, may ponder as well, of course, but that remains voluntary.