"BRM in Geneva is over: big failure for OOXML"

The <NO> OOXML website published the following post several hours ago (full text):

BRM in Geneva is over: big failure for OOXML

Summary:
The BRM in Geneva is over and, predictably, it failed to reach any consensus on support for OOXML.

The BRM in Geneva is over. A summary of the events is posted by Andy Updegrove in his blog. As you might have guessed, the five day meeting failed to properly address the huge amount of comments and proposed dispositions, and a rushed vote on Friday tried to lump together all unresolved issues in a package where the ECMA dispositions were to be voted on without any discussion. Needless to say, that failed miserably. Only ten national delegations voted, and only 4 P-members were for approval. 4 P-members disapproved, a whopping 15 abstained, and 2 even refused to register a vote in protest.

If you count all voting delegates, including those who are not P members, the vote was 6 approvals, 4 disapprovals, 18 abstentions and 4 refusals to vote. Expect this to be announced by Microsoft as a "3 to 2 majority for OOXML approval" in the next few hours. The reality is of course that this is a huge setback for Microsoft. The tricks they have been trying have backfired, and it is now more clear than ever before that OOXML is an immature specification which was totally inappropriate for the fast track procedure.

This means that there is no fully agreed-upon standards text to vote on for the upcoming 30 day ballot to approve or disapprove DIS29500. There are still a great deal of unresolved issues, and the text is half-baked at best. I simply don't see how this could become an ISO/IEC standard in its current form, regardless of the amount of money and marketing spin MS is planning to put into this in the next few weeks.

Comments

[Chris Clark]

The issues of the abstentations and refusals to register a vote are historically due to NBs not wanting to engage in a standards discussion, and it a valid point.

How you assess the value of NBs who very actively participated, were overwhelmed, and were simply unable to register a valid decision is something ISO should regard as requiring an urgent rule change. There would have been no buy in for Microsoft here even if the current and unrepresentative 'vote' was slightly higher. This will prevent further railroading attempts.