Open Malaysia

Cranky Geeks rip OOXML

I always have a 2 month backlog of podcasts because fortunately I don't spend too much time in the car. This morning, I started catching up with Cranky Geeks, a vidcast of John C Dvorak and his fellow cranks who gripe about the state of technology today.

I was surprised when they brought up the topic of OOXML. Here is a transcript (and my emphasis in bold) of their conversation (mp4 mp3):

John C Dvorak, Chief Crank, "dvorak.org/blog"

Sebastian Rupley, Co-Crank, Editorial Director, PCMagCast.com

Lance Ulanoff, Editor-in-Chief, PC Magazine

Veronica Belmont, Host/Producer, Mahalo Daily

Time: 15:00

JD: Microsoft OOXML has finally passed... Anybody here have a clue .. because Microsoft has been fighting it, fighting it fighting it, ... what do they want this for?

SR: Because the OpenDocument Format was the competitor for this, which is what the open source community wanted, and that would be basically and easy translatable way from all kinds of products, from open source to commercial products to exchange documents. Microsoft has its eyes on a proprietary type of format based on XML based on all its ...

JD: ... buts its gotta be open, its gotta be a standard, not proprietary .. ?

SR: Its not open though, this is really a shame I think that this went through. There also are some rumours, that there were voting irregularities, that Microsoft pulled stunts, in getting this passed. It means we have to jump through hoops like getting the translator to download, mobile translator that they have now,  for the 'x' documents that we do. Its a pain and it shouldnt happen ...

VB: Is this the DOCX? It confused the hell out of my mom I can tell you.

LU: It is driving people in the office and my office CRAZY, because every once in a while, a docx file shows up. Now if you want to open it you got to download the compatibility module for Office 2003.

SR: And its not just DOCX too, I get people sending me PPTX. "I cant open this PowerPoint, could you open it and rename it, save it to your disk and resend it back to me so that I can open it?"

VB: My dad installed the newest version of office on my Mom's computer at home, and she's not techie, but she uses Word everyday. And suddenly all her files were DOCX. And she was trying to open things, and send things to co-workers, and she just couldn't figure it out. ...

Im like .. thats ..?

SR: Its ridiculous

LU: There should be a rule that we are not allowed to go past 3 characters for file extensions.

JD: What is the point of docx?[1]

LU: Its like XML is a widely used standard for companies to inter-operate because they will have a structured document. Its a big document so theres a kind of description of what the document is going to be like, and then there is the different parts plug in to that, and as long as you have those two things riding separately, you can easily change stuff and have a whole vast set of documents changed.

At the desktop level, I dont entirely understand what the massive benefit is going to be, I think Microsoft understands it better than others, er, I have no idea whether or not they push people hard, but Microsoft wants to own something ...

JD: whats the thing on that movie 'Officespace', the guy who always had the TP report or whatever it was: TPS report ...

SR: Yes, its funny when they bring the birthday cake out "Whats the cake to person ratio" .. ?

JD: that would be for this report, you can make one change, and not worry about changing the coversheet, because it all would be automated. So I think they would be watching that movie too often apparently in Microsoft.

[1] It was pretty accurate up to the point Lance tries to explain what OOXML was, and when John tries to equate OOXML as a templating engine. Ah well, at least Sebastian Rupley really gets it and understands how harmful OOXML is as an international standard. It would have been better if he had more "airtime" in explaining the issues regarding this. And perhaps even elaborating on the "irregularities".

What is really interesting is how these people "in the know" have real world experience of these new file formats in the wild, and what the reaction is to them. Like the uptake of Vista, its pretty much negative.

Its also funny that the segment before this was about the April Fools pranks which occurred online. I think its quite unfortunate for Microsoft that their hollow victory (if its one at all) would fall on April the First. Well, whether the joke's on us or not, OOXML to me will always be remembered as the April Fools' Standard.

yk.

ps. Where's the Final Text for DIS 29500? Shouldnt it be out oh, 12 days ago? I should have guessed and expected as much, though; Microsoft has always found it difficult to released anything in time. Im just surprised that ISO has allowed their enshrined processes to be infected by the Microsoft vapourware release cycles so quickly. I would have thought maybe OOXML v1.2 or v2.0. But even before v1.0? Shurely... Is this considered yet another irregularity in the process? Maybe they are hiding it from us so that we have less time to review the changes before the deadline to appeal on 1st June. How are we expected to go through 6000 7000 8000 pages in the next 2 weeks?

South Africa Adopts ODF as a National Standard

South Africa has taken major steps in recognising ODF as a national and government standard.

Back in October 2007, it was announced that South Africa mandated that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) would be in the Minimum Interoperability Stanards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

The plan then was to have all government departments to view ODF documents by March 2008, all published government documents to be in ODF or non-proprietary formats by end of 2008, all internal government documents by March 2009 and finally a conversion of legacy documents to ODF or non proprietary formats.

So now, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) approved ODF as a national standard to make ODF as a standard more visible and accessible to South African citizens. The latest update:

Aslam Raffee, chief information officer at DST (Department of Science and Technology), says that the deadlines for ODF adoption in government have already been set and are underway. The initial deadline was March this year for government department to be able to read documents in ODF format. By September it is expected that all departments will be able to read and write in the Open Document Format. Finally, in 2009, ODF will become the default document format for South African government departments.

Raffee says this process is progressing well and at this point “citizens should be able to send documents in Open Document Format to departments”

What is significant is that South Africa was one of the countries which voted "Disapprove" OOXML consistently as an abnormal candidate for the "Fast Track" process. Its concerns against OOXML is reiterated in SABS final comments submitted to ISO:

The overwhelming majority view of the South African committee is that the scope of the overlap between the proposed standard and the existing ISO/IEC 26300 standard is significant.  A significant majority view is that South Africa sees no benefit in adopting another standard for document formats in this area.

If Microsoft thinks it can now inject its immature OOXML as an alternative format in South Africa's MIOS, they certainly are facing an uphill battle. SABS and DST will undoubtedly expect to hear a lot of whinging about "choice" and "market forces" lobbied at certain Ministerial Departments. Will CompTIA and ISC please step up?

This goes to show that certain Ministries of Science and Technology can stand up for the interests of their citizens, and not have to feel pressured by a single foreign multinational. If only this independence was more prevalent around the world.

yk.

It's not about choosing, but about having a choice.

Yasmin points out that the whole idea of having the OOXML format
as an ISO standard is not about choosing, but about having a choice.

What?

Yes. Try to understand that fantastic quote from Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia's (current) Managing Director. This was reported by Tech&U, which is currently leading the pack as the most reliable source of Microsoft propaganda. What's wonderful is that they quote Yasmin word for word without questioning what she really means. It makes hilarious reading.

I have transcribed the article below, as it is not available online yet.

What's interesting is that finally, we have documented proof that Microsoft is not interested in real choice for customers, but merely an illusion of choice. This is straight from the horse's mouth, as they say:

"The industry just wants to have the best innovation; they want to have the freedom of choice. The whole idea is not about choosing, it's about having a choice ... and that is what customers and partners want," she said.

It's about having the freedom of choice. Not really about making a firm choice, but at least we have some choice. I could go on about how fallacious this argument is but I think you readers are intelligent enough to know how this is so wrong.

But if Microsoft really has the interests of "choice" for their customers, why then don't they really, walk the talk, and provide choice of ODF in their products? Why are they restricting my choice as an end user who prefers the better ISO standard? Do they really practice what they preach? Why is there less choice in their products?

Why do they complain so loudly when their 'formats' are not considered and yet are so blatant about leaving out competing formats in their products? Why is Novell so much more capable in building OOXML support in OpenOffice.org and Microsoft, a vastly larger company with teams of developers having such difficulty writing ODF support in their products?

What really is rich about her comment about the astroturfing Microsoft Malaysia had seeded to create the illusion of OOXML adoption in Malaysia:

... some strategic projects in Malaysia have successfully leveraged on the format. Among them are the Malaysian Halal Hub Open XML System, RosettaNet Automated Enablement, Tradenex.com and World Congress on Information Technology 2008's Registration System.

I have already elaborated on how Microsoft funded the development of OOXML integration on "strategic projects" above (Halal Hub and RosettaNet). What is new however is the WCIT'08 Registration System. Who needs OOXML to register for a seminar? Don't we just need HTML/HTTP to do online registrations?

It's laughable that Microsoft Malaysia is trying to tag on OOXML to everything they sponsor.

Speaking of which, if you visit the WCIT website, at the bottom, you can see these logos:

CMS powered by Microsoft | Site designed by WCIT2008 | Developed by Pentasoft

It does not take a statistician to find a correlation between voting patterns on OOXML in Malaysia and "smart partnerships" with this WCIT circus. MDeC and PIKOM voted "Approve". MoSTI (Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) voted "Abstain" and its Minister ultimately overrulled the overwhelming 81% Disapproval position by TC4 and ISC-G, the technical committees overseeing the OOXML draft standard.

What has to be said is that the Microsoft Malaysia propaganda machine has to go into overdrive now because at the end of the day, while Malaysia voted "Approve" to ODF, in all intents and purposes, Malaysia strongly rejected OOXML in all sectors of the ICT ecosystem. At best, if spun properly, Microsoft can say that Malaysia is non-committal to OOXML as it merely "Abstained".

I wonder what other strategic projects Microsoft Malaysia can sponsor next? To them, the money train just left the first station and must keep going! We just have to sit back, and enjoy the spin. Eventually they will find that they cannot fund everything and buy support all the time.

yk

Canada's Final Position Statement on OOXML

I think Canada's Final Position Statement states very clearly what was wrong with this entire OOXML circus. Instead of being overly critical, they too and provide sound advise on how ISO can fix it:

I hope they appeal.

yk

ODF Alliance Statement on the ISO Vote on OOXML

The ODF Alliance released the following statement at their ODF Alliance blog:

ODF Alliance Statement on the ISO Vote on OOXML

Washington, DC, April 2, 2008—ODF Alliance managing director Marino Marcich issued the following statement regarding the ISO vote on Microsoft’s Office Open XML.

“The ISO vote on OOXML has raised awareness at the highest levels of government of the importance of preserving access to public information and records. For too long, this information has been locked into the closed, proprietary format controlled by a single vendor. This is increasingly unacceptable. For this reason, governments around the world have been adopting the already-ISO approved OpenDocument Format (ODF).

ODF will continue to be the document format of choice that best meets the needs of governments interested in ensuring access to their own information, now and in the future. The process itself brought to the fore OOXML’s deficiencies that will prevent its use by public administrations, chief among them that OOXML remains a “community of one”—undocumented features, IPR restrictions, and features and functionality linked to other Microsoft products that will prevent OOXML’s use in other software products. Governments will naturally take a “buyer beware” attitude toward OOXML and its lone implementation, Microsoft Office 2007. Nothing about the process will provide governments with any more confidence in OOXML’s openness and interoperability than they had before the vote.

The vote shined a spotlight on OOXML that will not dim. Only in response to growing public pressure has Microsoft promised to make changes to OOXML, and, to be sure, similar promises have been made on numerous occasions. To avoid any questions concerning the legitimacy of the vote, which included many documented irregularities, Microsoft needs to ensure that these promises made to national standards bodies are actually delivered. 

If anything, this vote has galvanized the ODF community, making us more confident than ever of ODF’s emergence as the document format of the future.”

Malaysia's irregular voting featured on ZDNet Asia

Finally, some press is picking up on Malaysia's strange voting decision. ZDNet Asia has been on the ball lately with OOXML news, and Lee Min Keong has picked up on information from OpenMalaysiaBlog to feature as an article (unfortunately) entitled "Malaysia unmoved in OOXML vote":

Some Quotes:

Minister ignored objections
According to Open Malaysia, the Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) took a vote on Mar. 27 to decide the country's stance on the OOXML-ISO vote, with 13 disapprovals, five abstentions and only three approvals.

By eventually taking the decision to abstain in the OOXML ISO ballot, Maximus Ongkili, who is two weeks into the job as Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation--following the country's Mar. 8 general elections--appeared to have ignored the ISC-G's majority "disapprove" vote.

In the article, the journalist tried to contact Microsoft Malaysia, but they said they wouldn't comment on the news, as the official result was not out yet. This was ironically "out of respect for ISO/IEC". They have a sense of humour, I suppose ...

It gets funnier. In response to some of my comments in by blog post on the ISC-G 81% vote, a "pro-OOXML industry source--who declined to be named" tried to justify PIKOM, MDeC and MIMOS's relevance as the 3 stalwarts of Malaysia's ICT's vision. The justification is laughable.

If the "pro-OOXML" source is so reputable, why decline to be named? Either the source is not reputable (e.g. Junk'em Conslutancy), or it's from Microsoft Malaysia themselves.

C'mon, don't be an anonymous coward. State your name and valid arguments please.

Anyway, I posted a "Talkback" stating that not all PIKOM's members are happy with their position. If at all, PIKOM should "Abstain" from this decision if they really listened to their members.

Please do read this article, and I look forward to more news like this in the future!

yk.

The Philippine Decision on OOXML - Updated x3

The Manila Bulletin and ZDNet Asia have the details of how close the voting was in the Philippines. The Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) decision in September 2007 was a "Disapproval" but on March 28th 2008, they reconsidered, and was deadlocked at 4 votes to 4. The Chair intervened, and tilted the decision to make it a "Approval" vote from Philippines.

Approve:

1. Peter Que of the Philippine Computer Society
2. George Kintanar of the CIO Forum
3. Juan Chua of the Computer Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Association of the Philippines.
4. Julie Sudario of the CICT's National Computer Center[3]

Beng Coronel of the   Philippine Software Industry Association [1] [2]

Disapprove:

1. Peter Banzon of the Advanced Science and Technology Institute of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST)
2. Prospero Naval of the computer science department of the state-owned University of the Philippines
3. Darwin Santos of the DOST's Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development.
4. Beng Coronel of the Philippine Software Industry Association [1][2][3]

Julie Sudario of the CICT's National Computer Center

The article explained the result:

"The voting process was as tight as it can get, with most representatives from the government sector electing to reject the document format. However, the chair of the committee, Philip Barilla of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT), tilted the balance of power to the "yes" side."

The general pattern, like Malaysia, is the same: Government agencies and Academia reject OOXML as an ISO standard. These represent the vast majority of its citizens' interests. Just what percentage of the population do the "pro-OOXML" Associations represent?

So we see, yet another decision based on simple majority. I wonder why consensus was not sought? I'm sure both sides could find resolutions to any perceived sustained opposition to find a consensus position?

yk.

[1] - [Update: 2nd April 2008.
According to some commentators on "The Last Lap", Philippines' decision may not be as straightforward. PSIA or Philippine Software Industry Association had a decision made which clearly stated in this document that:

"After considering all available information and the different perspectives of its board members, PSIA recommends that DTI maintain its "No" vote to accept OOXML as an ISO standard due to the following concerns:

[lists concerns]

"In addition, there are numerous technical concerns expressed by the DOST-ASTI. The PSIA representative to the DTI-NS concurs with ASTI's technical concerns as described in the attached position paper.

"The PSIA encourages competition and market forces to drive open standards. In this matter, the PSIA believes that an ISO certification requires a substantial 'readiness' for a standard to be adopted. At the moment, the PSIA believes that OOXML has not met that requirement."

Was PSIA [represented by PSIA president, Beng Coronel of Pointwest Technologies] convinced in the final meeting on the 28th of March which overturned this decision?]

[2] - [Update: 2am 3rd April 2008
I emailed a PSIA representative, and they have confirmed that they maintained a DISAPPROVE vote.]

[3] - [Update: 1pm 3rd April 2008
I received confirmation from Mr Jose Carlos Reyes from BPS that the article was erroneous in its reporting. PSIA did indeed vote "Disapprove", while NCC (National Computer Center) voted "Approve". So the voting numbers stand.

What is interesting are the reasons for their decisions. Take for instance, the justification from NCC CICT:

They suggested a "Yes with comments" vote in the last ballot, on conditional that Ecma fixes the ISO date issue at the BRM. We all know that the date issue is still not fixed. OOXML instead of cutting back on the number of type of date encodings, now allows 5 different type of normative dates.

This was recognised by the only party in Philippines who actually did some technical review, the Department of Science, Advanced Science and Technology Institute (DOST-ASTI):

How Philippines came to their vote and result is up to their own National Body to decide, and up to their citizens to question. What is certain however, it was not because of technical merits nor concerns with the DIS. It was more of a general policy issue and intervention from Ministries, which allowed OOXML through.

This it seems, to be a worldwide trend, and is a strange way of building and approving quality standards. What can I say?]

Episode 69: Rebel Employees Strike Back

Note: We have been featured in the news. w00t!

Taking a break from the entire OOXML saga, some of us decided to execute an elaborate April Fool's plan on Dinesh Arnold Nair, our collective QubeConnect boss and a (self proclaimed) Sith Lord. The plan ("Operation Coverup") involved wrapping up all items in the Sith Lord's office with aluminum foil. It's one those things that is actually a lot harder then it sounds (who knew wrapping cables in aluminum foil would be such a bitching effort, eh?).

I brought up the idea initially several months to some of the Sith Lord minions. It was initially a simple effort to wrap up all belongings of the Sith Lord. Over teh tarik (Malay sugared tea) and many beers, the idea expanded to wrapping his furniture in aluminum foil, plastering his walls with brown wrapping paper, covering his car with even more brown paper, adapting the Star Wars intro crawl text video for the finishing touch and dressing up in Ku-Klux-Klan style robes. At one point, we discussed involving his wife into a more elaborate scam involving wrapping up stuff in his apartment, but decided against it when we realized his wife is truly Sith and we may end up getting skewered in the process.

Anyway, as  the plan grew and grew, before I realized, there were more volunteers then there was room in his office. No problem, we could always parallelize the wrapping tasks, right? I thought we could have been done in a couple hours with seven of us. Hah, that turned out to be woefully over-optimistic.

31st March 2008 arrived and three minions marched over to the nearest hypermart to buy the supplies. We ran into our first hurdle - who knew that there were so many grades of aluminum foil? We decided on the smartest engineering decision that made sense to us then and bought six rolls of the cheapest foil available. It later turned out to be not such a bright idea as the cheapest foil also was the thinnest which made wrapping a tad bit difficult. Oh well. We also bought a roll of brown wrapping paper which came with 10 pieces of 1x1 meter sized paper.

So, evening came and SMS's were flying wildly, planning this and organizing that, but mostly we were jumping with excitement. We waited for everybody to leave, and waited a bit more, and waited some more and everybody left except for the Sith Lord. Oh all days, he decided to spend this day running load tests on the QubeTalk (our IP-PBX). Grrrr. No matter, we left for an early dinner hoping that he would have left by the time we got back.

At 8pm approximat-ish, we get back (all seven of us!) and apparently he had left for the day, so we start in all earnestness. Fuck, it was tiring work. We wrapped, and wrapped, and wrapped, and wrapped. We wrapped his ashray, his loose change, his lighter, his papers, his laptop, his picture frame (hey Sith Lord, there's a surprise waiting for you underneath that foil), his wastepaper basket, his awards and god knows what else. And while we were wrapping, one of us was working on creating the Star Wars intro crawl text video (I had adapted the original Star Wars text earlier in the day).

.

Bearing witness to POWER

The final votes for DIS29500 is now done. Apparently, results will only come out tomorrow. So, it's all over for now, bar the screaming and shouting. For many observers, it's absolutely clear that the voting process in various National Bodies have been less than ... logical. However, because there's not actually been anything illegal, in so far as anyone can tell, the hanky-panky have been described as "irregular".

There's been accusations of corruption, but none that anyone could really make stick. In Malaysia, there's been cajoling, lobbying, pleading, cabinet paper attempt-ing, lunches, dinners, following of officials like a puppy, arse licking, ego stroking, economic doom-spelling and other methods to convince the vote caster to approve the draft standard, OOXML, or failing that, to abstain. However, there haven't been any reports of outright vote-buying or any other forms of money exchange, nor do we expect any to come in the future.

So, on the surface, in Malaysia at least and in many other countries (except, allegedly, Sweden), the efforts of Microsoft to convince the NBs to approve OOXML as an ISO standard has been legal.

That it stinks to high heaven is beside the point.

What is the point is that we have collectively, globally, bore witness to an awesome display of power by a single corporation. Awesome. Ruthless, even. That Microsoft would fight in every nook and cranny, every possible avenue, every committee, sub-committee, sub-sub-committee, upwards, downwards and sideways to the committees, is simply astounding.

That Microsoft can and did encourage the final decision makers to ignore the wishes of their own standards bodies, majorities be damned, is further affirmation of this awesome display.

Some are saying that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Microsoft, that the battle is not yet over. They refer to Norway kicking back as the first return salvo. We await other nations (and personally, especially my own, Malaysia) to join Norway.

But let's make it clear here that protesting the approval of DIS 29500 OOXML is not a protest against Microsoft per se, but more against the besmirching of the process, the subversion and brushing aside the collective technical expertise of countless of interested/non-interested parties and experts, and sheer ignorance of any due respect to other people's opinions.

However, it was awesome. One company, Microsoft, against all comers, all over the world.

Simply, awfully, awesome.

The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation decides on Malaysia's final position on OOXML

I received a text message from the Director General of Standards Malaysia stating:

"FYI, M'sia maintained its abstention vote on the OOXML. TQ"

That's all the explanation I got.

I was expecting to understand the Minister's justification for overturning the 81% "Disapprove" position by ISC-G and TC4.

I guess I will have to wait for MoSTI to make a Press Release.

BTW, the previous justification by the ex-Minister back in September 2007 was:

"By abstaining, it does not mean that Malaysia agrees or disagrees with the new proposed standard, but that at the moment it is too premature to make a concrete decision based on vague and unclear information."

"Jamaludin said abstaining from voting meant that the Open XML would need to go through a more rigorous standardisation process."

Let's hope our new (2 weeks on the job) Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation can come up with better reasons than this.

yk.

Microsoft Lobbying In Singapore

Side Note: The Last Lap post containing OOXML results can be viewed here.

The ISO standards development process insist on the principle of consensus, industry satisfaction and voluntary adoption. Consensus is defined as:

"The views of all interests are taken into account: manufacturers, vendors and users, consumer groups, testing laboratories, governments, engineering professions and research organizations."

Microsoft has been strongly lobbying members of National Bodies to vote "Approve" on OOXML (DIS 29500) without due recognition and consideration of the technical issues that needed to be discussed and fixed in OOXML. Never mind that there is a substantial oppostion to the introduction of this draft standard (as it stands today), Microsoft has been spending countless millions of dollars and the time of many of its employees to lobby and get OOXML through the venerable gates of ISO by hook or crook.

Microsoft Singapore (led by Mr. Barney Lau) has been running an intensive lobbying campaign to the members of the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC) to vote "Approve" on OOXML and disregard the "Disapprove" recommendation of Singapore's Information Exchange Technical Committee. Sure enough, in September 2007, ITSC voted "Approve" despite its technical committee voting a strong "Disapprove". The members of ITSC include members of the academia and industry as follows:

1. Chairman, Mr Robert Chew representing the Standards Council
2. Mr V S Kumar representing the Association of the Small and Medium Enterprises
3. Mr Raymond Lee representing the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
4. Mr Alvin Ong representing the Information Technology Management Association
5. Dr Susanto Rahardja representing the Institute for Infocomm Research
6. Dr Derek Kiong representing the Institute of Systems Science
7. Mr Tam Kok Yan representing the Ministry of Defence
8. Mr Daniel Wee representing Nanyang Polytechnic
9. Assoc Prof Chia Liang-Tien, Clement representing Nanyang Technological University
10. Assoc Prof Pung Hung Keng representing National University of Singapore
11. Mr Lim Sah Soon representing the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry
12. Mr Alphonsus Pang, Singapore Computer Society
13. Mr Foo Jong Tong representing Singapore infocomm Technology Federation
14. Ms Susan Chong representing SPRING Singapore
15. Mr Harish Pillay individual capacity
16. Mr Wilson Tan, individual capacity

Apparently, Microsoft Singapore allegedly promised funding and discounts to the academia. There is no documentation to back this up, so I cannot substantiate this rumour (and neither should you consider it to be true). However, it is true that Microsoft Singapore got all its business partners to write in standard template letters of support to ITSC to get ITSC vote "Approve".

In particular, the Information Technology Management Association (ITMA) and the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SITF) (highlighted in red above), specifically wrote in to ITSC supporting OOXML as an ISO standard. Amazingly, both letters were CC-ed to Mr. Barney Lau (Microsoft Singapore Managing Director). I honestly did not know that ITMA and SITF were answerable to Mr. Barney Lau of Microsoft Singapore. Oh wait, he is a member of the SITF council.

That may be the most cogent explanation yet of Singapore's "Approve" vote I've seen to date.

Here are the letters sent by ITMA and SITF (as provided by a source in Microsoft who was not happy with the approach the regional Microsoft office took to railroad OOXML through Singapore's standards body).

Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) vote on OOXML

On March 27th 2008, the Malaysian Industrial Standards Committee for IT (ISC-G) convened, and one of its many points of discussion was the OOXML issue. This committee is set up to have a higher level overview of the political, economic and technical impact of standards ready for its approval.

Like for the case of TC4, there was no consensus building in the meeting, as the chair said all that was required is to receive the various positions of the committee. So the voting happened by paper, and the submission was for 10am the next day. Many members, who were already represented in TC4, submitted their decisions immediately.

Here are results of ISC-G on the position for Malaysia should take on the Approval of ISO/IEC 29500 as an international standard through the fast track process:

Approval:

1. PIKOM - Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia
2. MIMOS Berhad
3. MDeC - Multimedia Development Corporation

Disapproval:

1. ACEM - Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia
2. FMM - Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
3. KPDNHEP - Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs
4. MAMPU - Malaysian  Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit
   
5. MCMC - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
   
6. MNCC - Malaysian National Computer Confederation
7. MTSFB - Malaysian Technical Standards Forum Berhad
8. MINDEF - Ministry of Defence
9. KTAK - Ministry of Energy, Water & Communications
10. MMU - Multimedia University
11. Telekom Malaysia Berhad
12. IEM - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia
13. UTM - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Abstain:

1. DSM - Department of Standards Malaysia
2. MITI - Ministry of International Trade and Industry
3. INTAN - National Institute of Public Administration
4. MICCI - Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry
5. MoSTI - Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

The final results were therefore: 3 Approvals, 13 Disapprovals and 5 Abstentions.

It must be noted that the committee members also provided technical concerns and advisory comments like:

"TC4 deliberation on this matter during the meeting highlighted clear recommendation for this [Disapproval]"

"Looks like it's [DIS 29500] is a product specification and needs to go through normal process for approval"

"Draft is not mature for approval with 6000 pages. It must be thoroughly reviewed technically and not go through a fast track process"

"No final draft prepared"

Although it is a resounding "Disapprove" from ISC-G, with a super majority of 81% (13/16), this is NOT the final position of Malaysia on this issue, as the decision ultimately resides on the shoulders of the Minister of Science Technology and Innovation.

It also must be noted that DSM and MoSTI have consistently "Abstained" on this matter. I have had interaction with responsible civil servants within these agencies who have indicated their personal positions, which is to Disagree with the approval of OOXML, as all the other Ministries have.

So, by 28th March 2008, we have super majorities in both TC4 and ISC-G to Disapprove OOXML, and the good Minister would have ample information and advice on what to decide on. There is good consensus amongst Industry, End Users and Government Agencies that OOXML is not ready for standardisation.

Malaysia's decision is still not public yet, and I will await that news before I pass my personal opinion on this matter.

yk

Malaysian Technical Committee for E-Commerce (TC4) vote on OOXML

Now that the voting period for DIS 29500 (OOXML) has gone and past, I can now safely blog about the past weeks events in Malaysia.

On Friday 21st, the Malaysian Technical Committee responsible for evaluating OOXML were given ballot papers to be returned to SIRIM on Monday (24th) 5pm. This procedure differed from the normal voting methods employed by SIRIM.

Normally, TCs are given the responsibility to provide a position on certain matters, and to achieve that position was to gain consensus from all the parties involved. Consensus building means that we should find a position where there should be no sustained opposition.

However because it was a delayed ballot to be submitted later, this process could not happen.

Nevertheless, here are the results from the Technical Committee on

Malaysia’s vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 - Information Technology - Office Open XML File Formats 

Approve:

1. PIKOM - Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia [debate]
2. IASA - Brought in the VP from Microsoft US
3. DagangNet - Local company which brought in an expert with RosettaNet
4. MDeC - Multimedia Development Corporation

Disapprove:

1. FMM - Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers
2. MNCC - Malaysian National Computer Confederation
3. MAMPU - Malaysian  Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning
4. ARKIB Negara - Malaysian National Archives
5. KPDNHEP - Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs
6. KTAK - Ministry of Energy, Water & Communications
7. UTM - University Technologi Malaysia
8. Malaysian Association of Standards Users

Did not respond / Abstained / Holds no position:

1. ACEM - Association of Consulting Engineers of Malaysia
2. KASTAM - Royal Malaysian Customs
3. MOSTI - Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation
4. MMU - Multimedia University
5. Bank Negara

The final vote for TC4 was: 4 Approvals, 8 Disapprovals and 5 Abstentions.

What is interesting is that the Approvals, like in the case of India are associations which have strong ties with Microsoft, of whom provides support, funding and are sponsors to their events.

For the Disapprovals are Malaysian End-User Associations, Governmental Agencies and Academia. The bodies who represent the huge majority of Malaysian citizens' interests.

This however should be no indication of Malaysia's final vote, as this will have to go through TC4's next level, which is ISC-G. They held their meeting on the 27th, and a similar delayed vote, without consensus was also held.

Additionally, ISC-G's vote will not be the final position either.

The final position will be solely decided by the new Minister of Science Technology and Innovation, who had up till today 7am to cast Malaysia's final position.

yk

Return of the Living Dead - Brainless Attack on MoSTI - Part Deux!!!

I don't know what the attraction is, but somehow we all love the morbid fascination of Zombies in action. First, Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H CompTIA hires Mr. Jan van der Beld, Ex-Ecma Secretary General, to fly all the way here to KL, for an event supposedly about "good multiple standards".  There he challenges us to find a better way to Fast Track large, immature vendor dependent specifications. The answer is of course: "Don't do it." Later on that same day, like a man possessed, he turns up at a PIKOM meeting only to rant and thump tables.

Then yesterday, our fantastic broadsheet turned tabloid "The New Straits Times" featured a "Comment" by our so called "cooler head" Datuk Dr Mohd Ariffin Aton entitled "Walking the Talk on neutrality policy". If you've forgotten about him, you may be forgiven, but he is or rather WAS the CEO if SIRIM Bhd. Yes, another Ex-Somebody. He was the one with the inane explanations on why TC4 was shut down last year:

"There has been unprofessional conduct and a lack of ethical standards among some members of the technical committee," Ariffin said. "This is the first time in my 11 years at Sirim where ethics have not been followed." He, however, declined to name the individual members involved, citing his own ethical reasons. Ariffin said some TC/G/4 members had taken to belittling other members who did not share their pro-ODF views, both during committee meetings and in personal blogs.

First he said that he did not want to name 'em, because of his ethics, then immediately indicates who they are. Isn't it bizarre that a CEO would shut down his own TC without telling the TC what was wrong in the first place, and then going to the press to talk about it? How shameful is it that you can't keep your own house in order?

So yesterday, on Page 25 in the Malaysian Daily, he writes some amazing comments, which would make any Microsoft shill orgasm with delight. For you 'cold-heads' who are actually using your brain, please wear some protective gear around your gray matter, to prevent your head from from exploding!

Here goes:

Ditesh's Last Lap - Featured on ZDNet

Ditesh's little project, "The Last Lap", where he is compiling detailed stats of National Bodies results is featured in ZDNet. I guess his careful research has paid off! Reporters are basing his stats for their stories.

"Final Deadline Looms for OOXML" by Peter Judge, ZDNet UK.

However there is a slight mistake; Peter considers 56% (at the time of reporting) as approve, even though it clearly hasn't breached the super majority of 67%. Ah well, hopefully he corrects that.

Well done Ditesh! Your mama would be proud! And so would Thomas, the CIO.

yk.

Should India change its vote No vote for OOXML? - please?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Just like a big bully Microsoft is, they start to complain and throw a tantrum when things don't go their way. [ See pointers #3 and #6 in my "How to Royally Annoy National Bodies" ]

Read this post for the full story from India, entitled: "Microsoft files complaint on OOXML vote to apex office and Ministry of Consumer Affairs"

"I love Microsoft for their sheer willingness to piss off every human being on this planet in their quest for approval of OOXML. At the meeting held on 20th March 2008, we were informed that Microsoft has complained to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and to the apex office of the country about the constitution of the committee and also cast aspersions on the impartiality of the chairperson of LITD15, Mrs. Neeta Verma."

Hmm.. attacking the Chair. Does that sound familiar?

I am just amazed and shocked by the depths to which Microsoft is willing to descend.

Hey! Now why does that sound so familiar too? It's the second time Ive heard this phrase this week. I think I may hear it a few more times before the week is up

"I would also like to point out that the academia and government bodies have comprehensively voted against OOXML after spending more than a year reviewing it"

This is a certain trend in NB's. The moment you have groups of no vested commercial interests, they will find issues with OOXML. However:

"The only group to vote in favor of OOXML was the software exports group and that too on the basis of “support for multiple standards,” an argument which had no relevance because the committee was asked to review OOXML on technical merits and national interest."

This is exactly the same case here! These software exports groups just turn up and say the silliest reasons and expect to get away with it. Sorry guys. Technical Committees means Technical issues.

It's so sad to see such a wealthy and powerful company do things like this. Don't they have Corporate Governance rules against doing stupid things like this? Where is their conscience? Who do they think they can fool? Those Microsoft guys should be fired.

Well done to the Bureau of Indian Standards for standing firm against this raging bully. Hopefully one day the bully will learn how to play fair and contribute positively to the standards process, and not try to manipulate its way in.

Truly despicable behaviour. Shame on you, Microsoft, yet again. How will we ever trust you?

yk.

The Last Lap

Updated: 1st April 2008, 06:13 PM Malaysian Time (GMT +8)

 The Final Results are IN! Here are the final results of the countries voting for DIS 29500 (more popularly known as Microsoft OOXML). Countries without links are verified from the ISO results.

Participating Countries:

Approve	Disapprove	Abstain
Azerbaijan Cote-d'Ivore Cyprus Czech Republic (link) Denmark (link) Finland (link) Germany (link) Ireland (link) Japan Jamaica Kazakhstan Lebanon Malta Norway (link, another link) Pakistan Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovenia South Korea (link, another link) Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago United Kingdom (link) USA (link) Uruguay Changes: Czech Republic (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Finland (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Kenya (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") South Korea (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Denmark (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Venezuela (change from "Approve" to "Disapprove") Norway (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") United Kingdom (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Ireland (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Slovenia (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Trinidad and Tobago (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Japan (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Turkey (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") Note: Final Approval is NOT by simple majority. See Voting Criteria below.	Canada (link) China Ecuador India (link) Iran New Zealand (link) South Africa (link) Venezuela (link, another link) Changes: Czech Republic (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") South Korea (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Denmark (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Venezuela (change from "Approve" to "Disapprove") Norway (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") United Kingdom (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Ireland (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") France (change from "Disapprove" to "Abstain") Japan (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve")	Australia (link) Belgium (link) France (link) Italy Kenya (link, another link) Malaysia (link) Netherlands (link) Spain Turkey Changes: Finland (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Kenya (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") France (change from "Disapprove" to "Abstain") Slovenia (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Trinidad and Tobago (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Turkey (change from "Approve" to "Abstain")
Count: 24, Changes: 13, Net Change: +7	Count: 8, Changes: 9, Net Change: -7	Count: 9, Changes: 6, Net Change: 0

Observing and Other Countries:

Approve	Disapprove	Abstain
Armenia Austria Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Congo Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Egypt Fiji Ghana Greece Israel Jordan Kuwait Mauritius Mexico Morocco Nigeria Panama Peru Phillipines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania (link, another link) Serbia Syrian Arab Republic Tanzania Thailand Tunisia United Arab Emirates Ukraine Uzbekistan Changes: Cuba (change from "Approve" to "Disapprove") Russian Federation (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") Sri Lanka (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") Thailand (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Israel (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Mauritius (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Mexico (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Peru (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Phillipines (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Note: Final Approval is NOT by simple majority. See Voting Criteria below.	Brazil (link, another link) Cuba (link) Changes: Cuba (change from "Approve" to "Disapprove") Thailand (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve") Phillipines (change from "Disapprove" to "Approve")	Argentina Chile (link, English translation) Luxembourg Russian Federation Sri Lanka Vietnam Zimbabwe Changes: Russian Federation (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") Sri Lanka (change from "Approve" to "Abstain") Israel (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Mauritius (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Mexico (change from "Abstain" to "Approve") Peru (change from "Abstain" to "Approve")
Count: 37, Changes: 9, Net Change: +6	Count: 2, Changes: 3, Net Change: -1	Count: 7, Changes: 6, Net Change: -2

Final Vote:

• Criteria 1: 24/32 = 75.00% (PASS)
• Criteria 2: 10/71 = 14.08% (PASS)
• Overall Result: PASS 

Legend:

• Countries in BLACK are listed as per their September 2007 vote.
• Countries in BLUE have decided their final vote and their final vote does not represent a change in voting from September 2007 (click the links, where available, for the press release).
• Countries in RED have decided their final vote and their final vote represents a change in voting from September 2007 (click the links, where available, for the press release).
• Countries in BROWN are close to deciding their final votes but thanks to intense lobbying, things may change. Note that countries listed in BROWN are SPECULATIVE!
• Countries in stricken-out BROWN have changed their vote from their original September 2007 vote (as noted for each country) and are listed for reference purposes only. Note that this change may not be their final vote.
• Countries in stricken-out GREY have changed their final vote from their original September 2007 vote (as noted for each country) and are listed for reference purposes only.
• Changes list only enumerates countries which change their vote.
• Count is the number of countries in the list.
• Changes = "Number of countries added to a column" + "Number of countries subtracted from a column"
• Net Change = "Number of countries added to a column" - "Number of countries subtracted from a column"

Voting Criteria (JTC1 Directives, page 49):

• At least two-thirds of the P-members voting shall have approved;
• Not more than one-quarter of the total number of votes cast are negative.
• A P-member which has given appropriate notification that it will abstain from participation in specific work items (see 3.1.2) shall not be counted as a P-member when counting votes for drafts relating to such items.

ChangeLog:

Ditesh, 1st April 2008:

• Updated the final results (from ISO)
• Updated France's status (thanks Luc Bollen, Jean-Marie Gouarné)

Ditesh, 31st March 2008:

• Updated Australia's status (thanks Rob Brown)
• Updated Malaysia's status (thanks Yoon Kit)

Ditesh, 30th March 2008:

• Updated United Kingdom's status (thanks Andy Updegrove)
• Updated Ireland's status (thanks Andy Updegrove)
• Updated New Zealand's status (thanks Dio Gratio, orlando)
• Updated South Africa's status (thanks anon, Bob Joliffe)

Ditesh, 29th March 2008:

• Added another link for Kenya (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Norway's status (thanks Chris Auld, Andreas Wagner, Mikael Nillson)
• Updated Venezuela's status (thanks Avi Alkalay, orlando, Dio Gratia, Matt)
• Updated France's status (thanks orlando)
• Updated Chile's status (thanks Carlos)
• Updated Denmark's status (thanks Jeffrey)
• Updated South Korea's status (thanks Frank, The Open Sourcerer)
• Updated Argentina's status (thanks Carlos)

Ditesh, 28th March 2008:

• Changes list made more comprehensible
• Updated Kenya's status (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Finland's status (thanks Luc Bollen)

Ditesh, 27th March 2008:

• Updated Romania's status (thanks Apolodor for the vote link and the translation, much appreciated)
• Updated Cuba's status (thanks Dio Gratia)
• Removed Australia from "Approve" column and revert it back to "Abstain" column; resetted China's, South Africa's, New Zealand's colors.
• Added SPECULATIVE warnings. Countries listed in BROWN are NOT FINAL!

Ditesh, 26th March 2008:

• Changed definition of "Changes" statistic, added "Net Change" statistic
• Added link for Canada (thanks Anonymous)
• Added another link for Brazil (thanks Yoon Kit)
• Updated Brazil's status (thanks Anonymous)
• Updated Belgium's status (thanks Luc Bollen for the vote link and the translation, much appreciated)
• Updated Germany's status (thanks Luc Bollen)
• Updated Czech Republic's status (thanks Luc Bollen, orlando)
• Updated Criteria 1&2 after Czech Republic's flip from "Disapprove" to "Approve"
• Fixed Slovenia typo (thanks John Drinkwater)

Ditesh, 25th March 2008:

• Updated Criteria 2 calculations (removal of abstention votes from the denominator, thanks to commentators on this post)
• Updated Netherlands status (thanks Peter)
• Have not updated the status of Cuba due to possible confusion on whether the email sent by the NB is valid (thanks Anonymous)

How to Royally Annoy National Bodies

Guide to future monopolists on how to alienate yourself from National Bodies:

1. Waste NBs time in reviewing monstrous draft specifications
2. Claim that these specs can do everything for anyone by standardising marketing material
3. If you don't get your way at a certain level, lobby the superior above. Dont stop! Go all the way to the head of the nation if you think you can!
4. Leak press stories to journalists to pressure Ministries to make a decision. Quick!
5. Try to shut down TCs if actual technical work is done revealing issues with your plan
6. Question Question Question everything (process, fairness, the system, members) when things dont go your way
7. Otherwise create another TC with friendly experts
8. If the NB allows new members just by paying membership fees, encourage your business partners to join with marketing funds. Stack-stack-stack it high!
9. Stalk decision makers, even if it means traveling around the globe with them
10. Refuse changes in the spec especially if it breaks your product which you released prior
11. Have private interviews with TC members in the guise of funding for their new projects/research grants/interoperability initiatives and conveniently talk about their position on your spec.
12. Get your Business Partners to write in form letters. Some don't even bother to change the templates
13. Attend TC meetings uninvited by fabricating business cards
14. Send Lawyers in to Technical Committee meetings who prefer not to engage in "high-school" debates
15. Make rude and inaccurate statements against TC members in public

I'm sure there are more tactics which monopolists could use, but these are just a few which Ive heard about or witnessed over the past year. Other National Bodies would have more colourful stories to tell, and I guess the truth will come out eventually.

MY-0006 - Percentages

Well, if Doug Mahugh wanted a technical discussion, all he needed to do was email me, and I could have clarified many things with him. He then wouldn't need to have to travel all the way from Seattle to KL to make a grandstand at PIKOM, nor would he need to have to bend his ethics to fabricate a business card just to be in a meeting he wasn't invited to, nor would he have needed to deal with the international backlash which he is facing now. Oh yes, and he wouldn't need to avoid all the pertinent questions (internal and external) this poorly planned 72 hours in KL has raised.

Nor would he have to "burn the bridges" which Microsoft has built over the many years and have now been obliterated ("dihapuskan") with Malaysian Government agencies and Industry associations.

Quite a pity. Microsoft Malaysia wanted something to shout about, and boy did they get something! What were they thinking? The management team will sure have a lot to answer to.

Anyway, here is my take on one item which Doug raised in his first post dedicated specially for me.

The German Plan for Open Standards

Note: This blog post was powered in most part by Google Translate and as such, there may be some inaccuracies in the translation from German to English. Comments correcting mistranslation or providing more accurate translations would be most appreciated.

The German Federal Government Co-ordination and Advisory Agency (KBSt) has released a new version of its Standards and Architecture for e-Government Applications, SAGA 4.0. This is what the introduction says:

The document describes standards, technologies and methods for the use of information technology in federal agencies and makes recommendations, in particular the development and maintenance of e-government services in public administration. SAGA is valid for five years.

With the standards and architectures for E-Government Applications (SAGA), the Confederation promotes interoperability, platform independence and investment security of IT applications. The SAGA referenced standards thus form a basis for the smooth flow of data in the German e-government - an important prerequisite for a modern and service management...

Among the changes within the existing subjects are the inclusion of open document format, Office Open XML "(OOXML) and the classification of the" Open Document Format (ODF) as "recommended" standard for exchanging editable text documents. The standard for long-term archiving PDF/A-1 was later classified and is now applying "recommended".

 

The SAGA 4.0 document itself (PDF, 2.4 MB) states on page 114 that the Open Document Format (ODF) version 1.0 is a "Recommended" standard:

OpenDocument  was created by OASIS as an XML-based document format for text, spreadsheets, presentations and other office documents. Document contents and information on its layout are separated and thus be independently processed. It can be used to exchange complex documents used for further processing. In November 2006, OpenDocument v1.0 under the name of ISO/IEC 26300:2006 was published as a standard. OpenDocument is used by the OpenOffice package of OpenOffice.org

On the very same page, Microsoft OOXML was stated as a standard "Under Observation":

Office Open XML was approved by ECMA in December 2007 [sic] as an XML-based document format for text, spreadsheets, presentations and other office documents. It can be used to exchange complex documents used for further processing.

And it continues with stating PDF 1.4 as a mandatory standard (PDF 1.5 is a recommended standard, PDF 1.6 is a standard under observation).

What are "Recommended" standards, "Mandatory" standards and standards "Under Observation"? Page 20 and page 21 explain the designations in full:

Recommended standards:

Standards are recommended if it is used in practice, but not appropriate as a mandatory standard or if they don't meet all the goals and objectives of SAGA. Recommended standards must, however, meet the minimum requirement of openness