Promoting ODF (OpenDocument Format),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:
The preamble is pretty accurate, where he describes the Technology Neutrality issue, which I have no problems with. In fact I think it's a "Good Thing (tm)", as I elaborated back in December 2006, ironically in a similar Comments section in NST Online: "Technology Neutrality and what it means to us Malaysians." He does not apply any strange interpretation to it, so it's not necessary to comment on it.
However he does have a prediction that a recession is due, and somehow this crucial decision on document standards may avert that. I didn't know standards building was this influential to the country's economy!
"In the IT world, the life-cycle of a product may be just a few months."
This is his first strange off beat comment. I don't know if he is exaggerating "Internet-speed" or what, but I don't think ICT vendors like having few month cycle products. Fashion industry, and maybe handphones yeah, but standards? nah...
"Some of the greatest technological innovations (such as Bluetooth, MP3, DVD and iTunes) were based on closed or proprietary standards, so open standards may actually stifle innovation."
Wha-? This is a strange, strange idea. So what he is actually saying is that people should have more proprietary specifications as proprietary stuff drives innovation? How is that possible? Is he really saying that open standards are a bad thing? I would wholeheartedly argue otherwise! Open Standards allow anyone to implement it. Innovation can still happen in the market place while improvements are fed back into the evolving standards, making them continuously better.
His speechwriter should check his facts here. I don't think he meant what he said.
"However, the trend for mass products such as productivity software is now towards open standards to promote interoperability."
Yes. And this kind of contradicts the previous sentence. When we have interoperability, competitors will have to fight each other on either price or innovation. Guess what? you get innovation from interoperability! Hooray for Open Standards!
"In May 2006, Mosti voted "yes" to support an ISO standard on another competing format called Open Document Format (ODF), used mainly for open source and IBM productivity software."
Not only did MoSTI vote yes, but all the other Governmental bodies and Industry which voted "Yes". And these are MAMPU, KTAK, Royal Malaysian Customs, MDeC, FMM, MNCC, PIKOM, etc.
A correction has to be made. When ODF was voted in, IBM did not have a productivity software (which I may assume he means Lotus Symphony) in the wild. The biggest productivity software out there is OpenOffice.org. And that is mainly supported by Sun, and the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) Community. Looks like a year on, and Ariffin Aton still has the same old impression that this is an IBM vs Microsoft battle. It's a pity he is so unreceptive to new ideas.
" There is currently no locally developed document format. Both ODF and OpenXML are foreign."
Considering that OpenXML is specifically for "Microsoft Office 97 to Microsoft Office 2008 inclusive" as stated in its scope, and Microsoft Office, a foreign product is required to access the OOXML capabilities, I would consider it quite foreign.
Embun, a localised Linux distribution created and maintained by Malaysians, contains its own release of OpenOffice.org, which supports ODF. ODF is far more local than OOXML.
"OpenXML has been adopted as an open standard by ECMA International, a prestigious European-based standards body which is also a sister organisation of the ISO."
Ecma International's reputation is currently far from 'prestigious' today. With the beating it has taken due to this OOXML fiasco, I think many national bodies are seriously re-considering Ecma's relevance in ISO.
South Africa commented back in February 2007 that from now on, it will change its previous "Abstain" position to "Disapprove" for all "Fast Track" items. In February 07, South Africa commented on the "Fast Track" process:
The fact that some consortium has published a document that they refer to as a standard does not automatically imply that it has any sort of widespread industry acceptance. The fact that the publisher might claim international usage or acceptance is not longer a valid reason in these days of large multinationals, and the SABS [South African Bureau of Standards] has previously been approached by local branches of multinationals to vote in support of such PAS submissions, even if we have no local industry involvement or membership in the appropriate JTC 1 SC.
As result of this, South Africa will tend to vote negatively on all future PAS submissions to JTC 1 where they have not been appropriate SC. We would like to ensure that proper consideration be given to the PAS by technical experts. If the standard is indeed well known within the industry then this process might be very short.
This will be a change from our previous tendency to 'abstain' where we had no direct knowledge of the submission.
Dr. Ariffin goes on and says that NBs should group together and vote away this "Fast Track" rule tomorrow:
"Some quarters oppose the adoption of OpenXML because they are unhappy with the legitimate "fast track" process. They should convince their respective national bodies to convene a special ISO assembly to democratically abolish this rule."
This unfortunately is not a very constructive argument from an ex-CEO of SIRIM. Perhaps a better way to resolve this issue is to define certain set of minimum criteria for the proposed draft international standard to conform to before it gets allowed into the ISO "Fast Track" process. For example conformance to the JTC1 Draft standards, multiple implementations of the standard by independent vendors and a recommended size limit.
If Dr. Aton was more aware of the real situation, or gripes with the process of OpenXML adoption, he should realise by now that it's the "abusive and cynical" way Microsoft has pushed the large spec through ISO. It may not necessarily be Ecma's special relationship and the Fast Track process, but more of the way Microsoft has manipulated the system by
- abusing the special relationship between ISO and Ecma
- attempting and successfully stacking Technical Committees internationally
- ensuring that the spec has minimal changes throughout the process
- influencing the media and decision makers with the idea that this is a vendor war
- threatening and pressuring National Bodies and Ministries
These "quarters" are disappointed that ISO has allowed itself to be abused as such, and we are concerned of its future reputation.
"In the meantime, this "fast track" rule must be respected by all parties concerned."
Respect is a two-way street. If the "Fast Track" provides a plausible means of standardising a large specification, then it should deserve the respect it gets. Currently for this case with OOXML, it does not, and therefore this "rule" is not respected by National Bodies worldwide.
"The local IT industry, represented by Pikom, is supporting a "yes" vote on OpenXML adoption based on neutrality and giving the market more choices. Surely the position of the industry should count more for this case."
I am not sure how Dr. Ariffin got this information from, because at this point in time, the TC4 votes, have not been released.
PIKOM is an association of MNC's, and local companies. The local
industry has spoken. IBM,
Oracle, Sun and local companies who are PIKOM members, do not share
PIKOM's alleged view. So surely, if PIKOM was really representative of
the IT Industry, they should be neutral and vote "Abstain"? Isn't
"Abstain" a more "neutral" choice to take especially when there clearly
is no consensus amongst member companies? Isn't that the point of
Ariffin Aton's "Commentary"? Why isn't PIKOM "Walking the Talk"? Unless
of course it's because a certain conference is around the corner, and a certain company has
been "contributing" dosh ... money talks, therefore PIKOM walks, eh?
"What other countries decide is their prerogative, but in Malaysia, we have a policy of technology neutrality. Any decision here should not send the wrong signal to IT investors."
Currently now the only signal emanating from countries who have voted "Approve" is that they are NOT technology neutral, but only favourable to one and only one company. Is that a sign of maturity in their IT ecosystem?
"The conference in Geneva last month called to resolve all the technical comments of OpenXML submitted by various countries did not have enough time to resolve many of the technical issues raised. But technical consideration should not be the reason for opposing the adoption and straying from our principles."
Dr. Ariffin now considers that standards building is NOT a technical endeavour but rather a political one. I think this is cause for "straying from our principles".
Here is the list of the latest SIRIM Roles to act as :
- The champion of quality.
- A national research technology development corporation.
- A vehicle for technology transfer.
- A provider of institutional and technical infrastructure for the government.
How many times are "technology" and "quality" mentioned? Do you think now that "technical consideration should not be the reason for opposing the adoption" is straying from SIRIM's principles? I would love to see how the good Dr. justifies this.
"Certain quarters are using this issue as an opportunity for "Microsoft bashing" just because OpenXML originated from Microsoft. I am no supporter of Microsoft but I believe that any decision on this issue should be devoid of personal grudges, vested interests or software politics. This case is actually quite simple but it has been complicated, wittingly or unwittingly, by the intrigues and conduct of several parties involved."
It's funny that Ariffin now is critical of certain quarters' "conduct", when he himself has been involved in irresponsible behaviour like the "interview" he gave last year which was damaging to several parties. It was mainly an embarrassment to SIRIM itself. Also it is great that he brings up the complicated issue of "software politics" (is there such a thing?) because this issue is full of commercial vested interests by Microsoft, and he unfortunately is evidently being used as a pawn in a rather shameful manner.
"Lots of technical jargon is bandied about to confuse and scare people away from the key principles involved. "
Technical jargon? Perhaps Dr. Ariffin may not understand the process, nor the purpose of a TC, but a TC is a Technical Committee. In Technical Committees, members are supposed to participate in a technical manner. Jargon or technical language is unfortunately unavoidable. If you are not qualified to understand the jargon, you are far from qualified to provide commentaries in mainstream newspapers as an "expert" on this subject. Who is scared of technology?
"The whole case should be viewed purely on principles and accountability to end-users."
This is probably the best point brought up by Dr. Ariffin. End Users. These are the people we want to protect. Protect from them predatory vendors who wish to extract as much rent money from us. End Users. Who are the end users in this debate? Do you think PIKOM is a good representative of an "End User" who will be affected 10 years down the road?
No. End users are people like MAMPU and other government agencies. End Users are people like FMM who have over 2000 member companies who purchase software year in year out for end user use. These two bodies represent the huge majority of Malaysians who will be affected by any decisions on document formats.
And we think that OOXML is not suitable as it currently is. SIRIM and ultimately MoSTI are accountable to us End-Users. Please keep that in mind. No amount of lobbying, illogical commentaries or other incentives should influence any decision makers from this key fact.
The End Users have decided, and they don't think that OOXML is suitable.
"The vast majority of computer users in Malaysia still use MS Office software, which supports OpenXML. Even if there are still unresolved technical weaknesses, they should not hinder the adoption of OpenXML as it can be upgraded continuously (like ODF Version 1.0) as allowed for under ISO."
If Microsoft provided the means of giving us End Users the choice of which format to use, be it ODF or OOXML, would that solve this issue? Currently they have purposely restricted our choice by excluding ODF in their products, which they are free to implement in their products.
"To sum up, we now have two foreign competing formats: ODF and OpenXML. Both are technically imperfect and both need continuous upgrading. They cater for different market segments.
Some are more imperfect than others. What different market segments are there besides wordprocessing, spreadsheets and presentations? Can you describe the differences of scope between ODF and OOXML? Additionally, the discussion of ODF at this point in time is irrelevant. What we are concerned about is the technical quality of OOXML. Is it ready for prime time?
Have you seen the Final Text, and is it responsible to approve on something which you cannot see or hold? I know for a fact that Senior Managers in Standards Malaysia are against the idea of Approving something non-existent. The changes in the BRM are so far reaching that nobody knows what OOXML will eventually look like.
Having more competitive market choices is always good for efficiency. Unlike OpenXML, however, ODF is still hardly used here or elsewhere."
If you check, you will find more OpenOffice.org installations in Malaysia compared to legal Microsoft Office 2007. What does it bode for OpenXML? Market acceptance for MSOffice 2007 has been lacklustre. Pragmatic businesses do not find the need to upgrade to the next version, let alone to a next format which will change.
"Mosti voted "yes" on ODF adoption as an ISO standard in 2006. What should be the right decision now on the proposed OpenXML adoption as an ISO standard?"
This is a false dilemma. The decision of OpenXML as an ISO standard should be independent of what Malaysia thought of ODF. He seems to be stooping to the depths of a pure marketeer, to pass of a prior decision as a justification of another.
"We have a good policy of technology neutrality. We just need to walk the talk on it."
As we come to the end of the article, this poor interpretation of "Technology Neutrality" is not becoming of a proud country like Malaysia. This interpretation is a reason to be paralysed in our decisions today and of the future of what is good for our country. This poor, poor interpretation is nothing more than a reason to lie down and allow oneself to be ripped apart by predatory vendors.
No.
"Technology Neutrality" means that we as Malaysians should have the choice to choose whichever applications from different vendors as tools to access our data. Our data should be stored in a Technology Neutral manner. Technology Neutrality is a means to a freer and more competitive marketplace with more choice. Not choice in standards, but choice in applications.
We want multiple vendors providing multiple applications based on one standard. How hard is that to understand? That is why Blu-Ray winning over HD-DVD is a good thing. Now consumers can purchase hardware and content, while vendors can concentrate on building better, cheaper devices.
Does Dr. Ariffin still think multiple standards to do the same thing is a good thing?
"By this Saturday, Malaysia's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Mosti) must cast its final vote on whether to approve, disapprove or abstain on the proposed adoption of OpenXML as an ISO standard."
I am sure MoSTI has the capability to make up its decision without a self-confessed non-expert in this field lobbying in the mainstream papers. In fact I am quite surprised that such a poor commentary managed to make it through NST's editorial process.
Back in August 2007, NST also featured a small article which attacked MoSTI on this very issue. It aggressively challenged and pressured MoSTI on why it is "dragging its feet" on the approval of DIS 9000:2001 (sic! yes the ISO numbers was wrong!) This unwarranted lobbying caused the staff at MoSTI to be royally annoyed.
Does Dr. Ariffin think that using the same tactic would get him anywhere? If he hasn't already, he looks like a blatant shill.
Conclusion.
The reason why this blog post is oriented around Zombies, is because, like Jomar says, you really should thoroughly get rid of them the first time round. In the movies, make sure you put your car in reverse and crush them twice, or they will still keep coming back over and over again. Ex CEOs and Ex Secretary Generals of Standards Bodies just keep appearing and reappearing to grab that extra piece of gray matter.
Although their messages are rather lacklustre, primitive, deluded and even illogical, what is interesting is that they appear at the most strategic places and times. It makes you wonder how well oiled the PR machinery is driving this entire campaign. How much money would a vendor would have needed to throw in? How many editors they have to grease? Just makes you wonder...
And all I have is this blog, and way too much time...
I could go on but .. :ack:! My Brain!!!
Comment: Walking the talk on neutrality policy
As reproduced from http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/Columns/2196239/Article/index_html
THE local IT industry is a key and strategic sector of our economy. Our country is also facing stiff competition from many other countries in attracting capital investments, useful technologies, and highly skilled personnel (including Malaysians who might otherwise be enticed into working overseas).
The government, over the years, has formulated several progressive policies to stimulate and develop our local IT industry. One of them is on "technology neutrality", which basically states that the government does not favour any one technology product, platform or vendor over another, and the market should freely chose which products it wishes to procure or use, based on merit of the products.
By this Saturday, Malaysia's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Mosti) must cast its final vote on whether to approve, disapprove or abstain on the proposed adoption of OpenXML as an ISO standard.
OpenXML or DIS 29500 (ISO code), is a type of document format originally developed by Microsoft to support its Office productivity software.
The International Standards Organisation or ISO is a United Nations body governing the adoption and management of international standards. Malaysia is one of the 41 participating or "P" member countries whose votes will determine the outcome of the proposed adoption of OpenXML.
An ISO standard is considered an "open standard", used for linking up or interoperating with similar types of products.
The concept of open standards evolved from the physical world (such as specifications for screws and screwdrivers or nuts and bolts) where the life-cycle of a product can be measured in decades.
In the IT world, the life-cycle of a product may be just a few months.
Some of the greatest technological innovations (such as Bluetooth, MP3, DVD and iTunes) were based on closed or proprietary standards, so open standards may actually stifle innovation.
However, the trend for mass products such as productivity software is now towards open standards to promote interoperability.
In May 2006, Mosti voted "yes" to support an ISO standard on another competing format called Open Document Format (ODF), used mainly for open source and IBM productivity software.
This vote was taken with the support of vendors of other competing document formats, including Microsoft. This vote was taken despite ODF having unresolved technical defects and hardly being used here (one per cent of the local market).
There was also no technical scrutiny of ODF like what OpenXML is facing now. There is currently no locally developed document format. Both ODF and OpenXML are foreign.
OpenXML has been adopted as an open standard by ECMA International, a prestigious European-based standards body which is also a sister organisation of the ISO.
Under ISO rules, an ECMA standard product such as OpenXML can qualify for the "fast track" process of adoption, where some preliminary steps are bypassed.
Some quarters oppose the adoption of OpenXML because they are unhappy with the legitimate "fast track" process. They should convince their respective national bodies to convene a special ISO assembly to democratically abolish this rule.
In the meantime, this "fast track" rule must be respected by all parties concerned.
The local IT industry, represented by Pikom, is supporting a "yes" vote on OpenXML adoption based on neutrality and giving the market more choices. Surely the position of the industry should count more for this case. What other countries decide is their prerogative, but in Malaysia, we have a policy of technology neutrality. Any decision here should not send the wrong signal to IT investors.
The conference in Geneva last month called to resolve all the technical comments of OpenXML submitted by various countries did not have enough time to resolve many of the technical issues raised. But technical consideration should not be the reason for opposing the adoption and straying from our principles.
Certain quarters are using this issue as an opportunity for "Microsoft bashing" just because OpenXML originated from Microsoft.
I am no supporter of Microsoft but I believe that any decision on this issue should be devoid of personal grudges, vested interests or software politics.
This case is actually quite simple but it has been complicated, wittingly or unwittingly, by the intrigues and conduct of several parties involved.
Lots of technical jargon is bandied about to confuse and scare people away from the key principles involved. The market for e-document or productivity software is gigantic and growing. It is used by consumers, businesses and governments, which explains the huge interest in this case.
The whole case should be viewed purely on principles and accountability to end-users.
The vast majority of computer users in Malaysia still use MS Office software, which supports OpenXML. Even if there are still unresolved technical weaknesses, they should not hinder the adoption of OpenXML as it can be upgraded continuously (like ODF Version 1.0) as allowed for under ISO.
To sum up, we now have two foreign competing formats: ODF and OpenXML. Both are technically imperfect and both need continuous upgrading. They cater for different market segments.
Having more competitive market choices is always good for efficiency. Unlike OpenXML, however, ODF is still hardly used here or elsewhere. Mosti voted "yes" on ODF adoption as an ISO standard in 2006. What should be the right decision now on the proposed OpenXML adoption as an ISO standard?
We have a good policy of technology neutrality. We just need to walk the talk on it.
Datuk Dr Mohd Ariffin Aton just retired as CEO and president of Sirim Bhd, the standards development agency of Malaysia. He is now the chairman of a listed oil and gas company and a waste recycling firm.
>before it gets allowed into the ISO "Fast Track" process. For example >conformance to the JTC1 Draft standards, multiple implementations of the >standard by independent vendors and a recommended size limit.
Also, get rid of "Yes, with comments" votes. Since I first heard of this they seem to me as a copout. If you vote yes, then deal with your "recommendations" during maintenance.
While you're rewriting some passages, replace "Yes" with "Unconditional Yes". No more false hopes :)
Posted by: gml | Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 07:05 AM
"Some of the greatest technological innovations (such as Bluetooth, MP3, DVD and iTunes) were based on closed or proprietary standards"
Um... MP3 is part of ISO/IEC 11172-3, the MPEG-1 standard for audio/video compression; Bluetooth is IEEE standard 802.15.1 and DVD itself mainly uses the MPEG-2 standard, which is ISO/IEC 13818-3. So uh, closed proprietary standards? Only in the sense that some wackjob company filed idiotic patents on the tech after implementation, mainly as an extortion technique...
Posted by: DarkPhoenix | Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 11:39 AM
I don't know how many times they've rehashed this part about proprietary standards and innovation.
My retort usually is, if proprietary standards and standards with royalties are so damn good.. then get off the Internet and stop using the web and emails and go set up your own MSN network or something.
Posted by: kaeru | Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 01:35 PM
"The vast majority of computer users in Malaysia still use MS Office software, which supports OpenXML. Even if there are still unresolved technical weaknesses, they should not hinder the adoption of OpenXML as it can be upgraded continuously (like ODF Version 1.0) as allowed for under ISO."
I did not realize that the vast majority of Malaysions had already upgraded to MSOffice2007. Or is this statement intentionally misleading readers by trying to inflate the importance of MSOffice2007 in the wild ? MSOffice2007 uptake has been VERY slow in the rest of the world and ONLY MSOffice2007 comes close to supporting OOXML/ECMA376/DIS29500. MSOffice2003 supported a different (not compatible) variation of an XML-based format and versions of MSOffice prior to MSOffice2003 did not support XML at all.
If (as I suspect), the vast majority of Malaysians (as well as the rest of the world) are actually still using and exchanging documents in the old MS binary formats, what is the purpose of deliberately mis-stating the market penetration of MSOffice2007 in a letter ostensibly about technology neutrality unless the author is trying to justify DIS29500 on non-technical reasons under the 'umbrella' of 'technology neutrality'?
I would also like to highlight that OpenXML does not contain "technical weaknesses" so much as outright contradictions within the specifications, MS-proprietary references that are not documented and that are patent/copyright-encumbered, and elements that will break any and all XML parsers in use in the industry today (because the DIS29500/OpenXML-spec) already contains proprietary extensions that violate the existing XML standard. Any 3rd-party or open-source organization that attempts to implement OpenXML using this standard does not have sufficient information to succeed.
Market share and moneyed special interests do not substitute for technical quality - and especially should not construe 'technology-neutrality' as 'technically-incompetent' or as 'technically-subservient to financial-special-interests'.
My last point is that ODF is not on the table for this vote. DIS29500/OpenXML is. To the comment about both systems needing upgrades, I agree. ODF is getting periodic updates and has a vibrant community of several organizations contributing to those upgrades. OpenXML has not even been approved and already has more work scheduled for 'maintenance' than ODF. These are not 'upgrades', these are errors, omissions, and design flaws not fixed from the original draft.
This turkey should be voted down and ECMA/Microsoft should re-submit it through the standard-track instead of the fast-track.
Posted by: Ed | Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 02:32 PM
Ed:
Microsoft has been conflating the uptake of OOXML almost from the beignning. What they've been trying to do (and are still trying to do) is get out there the opinion that OOXML = old binary documents. Generally, when they present OOXML uptake numbers, they're abnormally high; only possible if they're including uptake of the proprietary old formats as well. Hence why there's a huge difference between Microsoft's numbers and the numbers presented from people like Rob Weir (who used Google's file search as a baseline).
kaeru:
Microsoft tried their own proprietary replacement for the Internet; that's why they were years late to the Internet party in the first place. Bill seriously thought people will rather be locked into Microsoft. There are still legacy parts in Windows resulting from that idiotic attempt at forced invasion, like the NetBeui protocol (used by SMB/CIFS). It would have happened, too, if it wasn't for Apache and the fact that Microsoft never managed to get majority control of the web server side. If they'd gotten IE's penetration with IIS, the current Internet would be a proprietary system controlled by Microsoft...
Posted by: DarkPhoenix | Friday, 28 March 2008 at 09:36 AM
Great post guys,,
Posted by: Mohan | Monday, 31 March 2008 at 04:33 PM