Open Malaysia

Finally, the news of the objections to MSOOXML/Ecma 376 is out. Journalists are now reporting on the comments raised by the various countries, however there are some wrong impressions. Not to anyone's fault because even National Bodies were confused on this process and definition of "contradiction" as demonstrated by the comments raised by the P Countries.

"Documents obtained by Computerworld (PDF format) show that six countries -- Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Kenya, New Zealand and the United Kingdom -- strongly opposed putting Open XML to a vote in five months.
Another five countries -- Australia, France, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore -- also identified problems they saw with Open XML’s current proposal. But none stated outright their opposition to putting Open XML on an accelerated process."

It must be noted that although Malaysia did not state outright our opposition in putting MSOOXML on the accelerated process, the fact that we raised comments of contradiction is a sign of objection. The Standards Body in Malaysia realises this and did not explicitly state it in our concise document so as not to appear too abrupt. They are polite like that. But a raised contradiction is an objection. Marbux  explains the details and legalities of this "Fast Track" process: [with my emphasis]

"If an NB submits a contradiction, then attempts are made to resolve differences by the ISO's ITTF and the JTC-1 Secretariat before ballots are distributed on the contradiction. If an NB maintains a contradiction, further dispute resolution processes may ensue, but a contradiction is in effect a veto. The default is that the draft standard remains on the fast track unless a contradiction is raised and maintained. If the draft standard remains on the fast track, a final ballot on Ecma 376 adoption as an International Standard is distributed to all ISO members five months after the vote on the contradiction. However, I stress that it is a consensus process throughout.  It is not, for example, a process whose decisions are made by majority vote.

During the 5-month period, the draft standard is reviewed and can be amended by agreement. However, if Ecma 376 is derailed from the fast track, then it would have to be resubmitted by Ecma International to JTC-1 on a more flexible track, allowing far more time for thorough review and evaluation of the 6,039-page draft standard. That assumes that Ecma would decide to do so rather than just abandoning the ISO standardization goal."

At the Technical Committee meeting, a vote taken on the motion "to allow the Fast Track procedure to continue without comments". 9 out of the 10 voting members disagreed with this motion. We felt that such a large document of 6039 pages would not be appropriate to be fast tracked. We decided that a "Disagree [to the fast track] with comments" would be our decision.

So now that Ecma/Microsoft has responded to the contradictions, future blog posts will review their justifications and their explanations. On first glance, they seem to insist on continuing with the Fast Track process and to review the issues during the 5 month voting period. This remains unconvincing, disregards most of the suggestions raised by the P countries in that 5 months is a very short time to review the large specification.

Perhaps within the 5 months, we may resolve the issues raised, but what of the many other issues yet to be discovered? India abstained because there was not enough time within the 30 days to make a valid decision:

"It is requested to extend the contradictory period by one month for the above mentioned document."

This very reasonable request for a longer time to review the largest draft spec ever to pass through ISO, should not be misconstrued as a statement for support of the Fast Tracking process. It is a diplomatic way of saying "not so fast, buddy." And since India sits on JTC1 and this modest request should be properly addressed with very good justification otherwise.

The article continues:

"For a proposed standard to be approved by ISO, two-thirds of the members of the JTC-1 committee, or 20 countries, must vote for it. Meanwhile, no more than one quarter of ISO’s 157 members that cast their vote -- non-JTC-1 member countries may abstain -- can vote against it."

Im not sure how a the "quarter of ISO's 157 members" come into play. The ISO link specifically says that:

"The text is submitted to all ISO member bodies for a five-month vote as a draft International Standard (DIS) and is approved if 2/3 of the P-members vote affirmatively and not more than ¼ of all votes cast are negative."

So Microsoft and Ecma have a hard task ahead in convincing at least 20 countries to vote for AND ensuring that not more than 7 countries (¼ of the P-member countries) vote against it. However this only happens AFTER the contradictions raised are fully addressed by Ecma.

This Fast Track process should be put into perspective. The following is Ecma's main purpose as a standards building body:

"Ecma is the inventor and main practitioner of the concept of "fast tracking" of specifications drafted in international standards format through the process in Global Standards Bodies like the ISO. Since 1986, when fast tracking was introduced to ISO, over 75% of fast-tracked standards have been fast-tracked through Ecma."

There are valid reasons to fast track certain industry standards, as demonstrated by the 75% of standards Ecma has submitted through ISO. However for a specification as large as MSOOXML the justification for a fast tracking process has to be very good. Ecma has not convinced us and we still think that MSOOXML belongs in the 25% percentile of draft standards which are substandard.

yk