News of the Weird (April issue)
April 21st, 2009
- IBM votes for OOXML at the ANSI (the U.S. standards body) and the Microsoft-sponsored mob rejoices. The problem? Despite what it seems, the rules of the particular TC at the ANSI did not allow members to go against a previous ISO vote on the standard. In short, Jesper & Co are dancing over the body of a dead horse, or rather, continue to behave like some analysts who claim that Bernie Madoff’s business has a great future. Is OOXML a standardisation ponzi scheme? I think it is.
- Oracle buys Sun. That is going to shuffle the cards a lot, and maybe ruffle some feathers. In any case, the competitive landscape is going to be changed for ever. What does it mean for OpenOffice.org? I really don’t know, and not much can be said beyond the formal answer. Browsing through the different FAQs and press releases though makes me think that 1) ODF will be supported and carried forward 2) Although not a real open source player, Oracle takes open standards at heart. Stay tuned, it’s going to be interesting.
- The Durban 2 conference in Geneva makes me think of a bizarre mashup of the first Durban conference and what I experienced at the OOXML BRM. On the one side you have outrageous antisemitic accusations going unpunished, dangerous sophistry enforcing the preeminence of religious fundamentalists over freethinkers, while on the other side, you have members of international organisations who claim everything is fine and is working out just fine. What would Alex Brown do?
Free Software, General, OOXML, OOo Postings, Open Source, Open Standards, OpenOffice.org, The Cloud
Hi Charles,
I noticed your link to my post. It seems you are more into the nitty-gritty details on this than I am. Could you explain to me, why IBM couldn’t have chosen to either abstain or not vote at this ballot?
Google and others did not vote and IEEE and GS1 chose to abstain.
Given IBM’s (public) position on OOXML, I think the expected vote would be either “not vote”, “abstain” or “No”.
… I just don’t get it …
@Jesper
> IBM’s public position
And what is that? Some IBM employees state personal positions (on blogs which disclaim these being corporate views).
IBM made an official statement last year: (http://is.gd/tQvQ):
“IBM will continue to be an active supporter of ODF. We look forward to being part of the community that works to harmonize ODF and OOXML for the sake of consumers, companies and governments, when OOXML control and maintenance is fully transferred to JTC1.”
Now that control has transferred, we might be expecting to see IBM at the harmonization table. But we should definitely expect them to work with OOXML “for the sake of consumers” — that their customers we’re talking about!
And a vote such as the one in INCITS is of course another expression of an “official” position. You are right, IBM could have chosen (as others did) not to vote, to vote “not yet”, or to abstain. Instead it voted YES to the transposition of the standard to become an American standard.
I think, taking a wide view, this is to be expected: it is clearly in IBM’s business interest to support OOXML where customers demand it – and IBM is legendary for taking a hard-headed view of business realities. This does not mean, of course, that its support for ODF is any the diminished for that! Kudos to them for that.
Here is the applicable INCITS rule:
“Given the responsibilities and the expenditures associated with U.S.
participation in the international standards activities, INCITS considers participation as a “P” member a declaration of support for the technical work. Accordingly, INCITS will adopt as national standards all ISO/IEC or ISO standards that fall within its program of work.”
So, this was purely the application of US NB policy. We are called on to adopt as US standards anything approved by ISO in committees where the US is a P-member.
Alex relishes in the ambiguity of the word “support”, as do other mischievous characters. However, our vote in this ballot was according to the criteria stated in the committee rules, which did not call for technical inquiry, market analysis, suitability for use or any other criteria other than “Was it approved by an ISO committee in which the US is a P-member?” This is a factual question and can be answered with certainty. Yes, ISO/IEC 29500 was approved by JTC1 and yes, the US is a P-member of JTC1. The proper voting position follows automatically.
To read anything more into this ballot is unwarranted. Just so we’re clear, IBM’s opposition to OOXML remains strong and has not changed. We continue to question the suitability of OOXML as a standard and raise objections to the distorted process by which it was inappropriately forced through ISO/IEC JTC1.
Rob hi
Are these the rules:
http://www.incits.org/rd1/INCITS_RD1.pdf
?
If so, the para you quote continues:
“Exceptions will be made, on a case by case basis, provided that a case for the exception has been demonstrated to INCITS.”
Would not such a case would be “demonstrated” by members making an argument and backing it up by voting?
Otherwise why have a vote at all?
The availability of a “not yet” vote allows a member to agree with the INCITS policy but still vote to postpone adoption (or so it seems to me).
BTW, why adopt these kinds of texts an American Standards anyway? It’s not as if the Internatinal version is hard-to-get or in need of translation into US English …
Alex, the criteria are clearly stated. Certainly, if a member demonstrated that the conditions for approval did not hold, then voting ‘No’ would be appropriate. But the factual question as to whether ISO/IEC 29500 had been approved by JTC1, and whether the US was a P-member of JTC1, are not items which could reasonably be brought into question. With the approval criteria clearly stated, and beyond question, there is no basis for a ‘No’ vote.
You are mistaken as to the meaning of “Not Yet”. That just indicates that the person had not voted in this ballot. It is not a voting position and it does not signify that the standard should not be adopted “yet”.
As to why adopt these standards as national standards, the only significance I see in the US is that as a US standard, ANSI copies are available for purchase at a vastly reduced price compared to the ISO version. Of course you could just download from Ecma for free.
Of course, other countries have different rules for what is required for transposing an IS into an NS. Some require translation, and many require technical review and approval. And some do not require any transposition process at all. So don’t expect me to justify why the US rule is as it is. I could just as well ask you why England still has a Monarch. I’m sure it made sense once.
Rob hi
Well, you have a narrow reading of what constitutes a “case for the exception”, I think.
Thanks for the explanation of what “not yet” means.
The other thing that struck me about this ballot was that it seems it was concurrent with a public review, and that if *any* public comments had been received, the ballot would have been voided and the case re-considered by INCITS.
It seems ZERO public comments were received. I find that remarkable, considering the (supposed) level of public interest in this standard.
On national adoption I wasn’t expecting you to *justify* national adoption. As you say, the thing can be downloaded free anyway (from ISO as well as Ecma, in fact).
I’d agree with you, I think, that often this kind of national transposition is something of a procedural relic …
Alex is right. National transposition is a procedural relic.
We should get the specs right out of software vendors and just skip this standardization crap that only justifies to pay useless consultants whose status is construed as some kind of impartial judge.
This kind of failed processes have led us to believe that standards and norms could be somehow trusted; as it unfortunately turns out, it stops to be true when strongly applied pressure by one large private monopoly meets the weak morals of the ones in charge of ensuring the process is being duly respected.
Thank you Alex, for spelling out the truth. Your lack of impartiality and your strange behaviour during the OOXML standardization process have clarified how poorly qualified you are at patronizing others and lecturing on the ISO and other standards bodies’ processes.
I wish you good luck for your next job at Microsoft.
I am a bit suprised my the new rude or negative tunes you whistle, Charles. Same applies to Alex Brown and consorts. It all feels a bit weird with all the gossip. Alex Brown complains that IBM didn’t vote a symbolic no?! Yes, says Rob Weir, that is the way it is always supposed to be. The implication is of course an internal battle.
You did abide to controlled communication and now we observe a relaxation on the battle ground. Spring to attention!
Let’s better write about the important news as the ISA programme (unfortunately without explicit “open document exchange format” but that doesn’t matter
). After all they at the Commission caused the Open XML standardisation effort as I learned from Wikipedia (ha-ha).
Charles, will you be in Brussels for the Google conference event tomorrow? I am very busy to finish a pending report and be next week I will be in Prague for a conference, so I won’t make it
Don’t forget that ISO standardisation is just a means to an end. Don’t slay the slain and keep focussed, I’ve some great ideas for action.
André,
I will not be in Brussels tomorrow. Too bad, I am going to miss the Google conference, but hey, we have to speak: I also thought about some great idea, and I think they won’t even what hits them when they’ll see it coming. It’s about the EASSCP (European Action for Software & Standards Committee Protocols), remember?
Alex, I think we would all be interested in hearing how you would have stated the case for an exception and argued against transposing ISO/IEC 29500 into a national standard.
-Rob
To the statement “It seems ZERO public comments were received”; I am not sure when the window of opportunity to comment was but I am a US citizen and I did send an email to info@ansi.org I don’t see that it mattered in the votes, but I did comment.
Charles, here’s the French search engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero
Of course it didn’t take off…
I know about it, and the only thing that happened is that Thomson took almost all of the money (that’s what the press said) and the rest went to a french startup, exalead.com who now is a MS puppet and is proprietary. 100 million Euros or so gone with the wind.
Concerning Vint Cerf, that the only report I found so far of the Conf:
http://arebentisch.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/vint-cerf-and-the-cloud/
Was a pity that we weren’t there because I still would like to ask: “Were are all the Geneva videos gone?”
@quero: That is the expected way things go, Charles. though not too expensive to get the Schröder-Chirac meeting a bit result buzz in the press. It was all 2005. Things are different now.