Open Malaysia

It looks like Ms Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner for the European Union is in agreement with governments and their agencies for choosing proper open standards, as reported by the New York Times:

“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

So its apparent that Malaysian agencies like MAMPU are also doing the right thing in adopting true open standards like ODF as their document file format, despite the fact that Microsoft Malaysia is constantly lobbying and interfering with MAMPU's decisions. The reaction from Microsoft's lobbying is certainly interesting. I think people are getting tired of their underhanded tactics, and false cries of "competition" and "fairness".

Ms Kroes continues to applaud the efforts of governments in making the right choices:

She praised the German city of Munich for using software based on open standards, along with the German Foreign Ministry and the Gendarmerie Nationale, France’s national police force.

Ms. Kroes, who is Dutch, encouraged the Dutch government and Parliament to continue moving toward use of open standards. EU agencies “must not rely on one vendor” and “must refuse to become locked into a particular technology — jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession,” she said.

A policy by the European Commission adopted last year to promote the use of software products that support open standards “needs to be implemented with vigor,” she said.

It would be great if she could look into the running of the Netherlands National Body which is was forced into a "abstention" decision not because of any technical ineptitude to review OOXML, but because Microsoft held the 'veto' to find no full consensus amongst the TC members, as described here:

The result of this intensive process was that during the last meeting on the subject on August 16th 2007 in Delft - where the vote was to be cast - after a majority rejection of a proposal for an "Approval" a final proposal for a so called conditional approval (i.e.: a no vote that would turn into a yes vote if a number of reasonable and already determined conditions were met at the next stage) almost got unanimous support - from all but the local support branch of Microsoft. This isolated position caused the vote to fail and the Netherlands to automatically vote for an "Abstain".

Ms Kroes is of course no stranger to the wrath of the Microsoft machinery, having to battle with them for over 4 years with regards to Microsoft's bundling of their proprietary products, and their indignation in defying her orders. What is interesting is that governments and regulators are getting tired of Microsoft's antics and are starting to bite back.

Ms. Kroes did not name Microsoft in advance copies of her speech, but she made her meaning clear by referring to the only company in the history of EU antitrust enforcement that has been fined for refusing to comply with commission orders — a record held by Microsoft.

“The commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case,” she said.

I wonder when the Ministry of Domestic Trade will wake up and realise that they are practising uncompetitive behaviour by mandating that all PC's should be shipped with operating systems from a single vendor? Surely consumers should have a "choice"? Why isn't the Institute for Software Choice / CompTIA lobbying Dell to have more choice in their OS offerings for their desktops? Ubuntu/Fedora/openSolaris/FreeBSD? Why aren't those being offered?

What is ironic is that we are being told by Microsoft that their rushing of OOXML is due to the EU's request for more open standards in their products. Unfortunately in their haste to push OOXML through the ISO process, they caused such a mess in terms of their relationships with governments, agencies, national bodies and more importantly the media, that Microsoft is now being investigated on their attempts to play the ISO system for OOXML, as reported by The Wall Street Journal in February 2008.

So things aren't looking so swell for Microsoft. Their OOXML is currently in limbo, and will not be published on schedule, because 4 countries (Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa) have appealed against the ISO stamp of "approval". Additionally, the final draft as promised by the BRM is still not available to National Bodies to review, 3 months on (directives clearly state that it should be available within 1 month). Unless of course they don't want to see any changes between the final draft and published text because of the restrictions imposed due to the "Fast Track" process?

Lets see how the Microsoft machinery reacts to this set of interesting news, and see how they spin in.  How much has this fiasco cost them? What did they get out of it? A chance to be more open? Can you see a change yet?

yk.

Its official.

At least one National Body has submitted a formal complaint to ISO and IEC. South Africa was rather vocal about the Fast Tracking process of OOXML from day one.

It also has recently made ODF as its National Standard, and has a firm plan on how to standardise on one document format in their  Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in government (MIOS).

This is what was submitted to ISO and IEC in separate appeals:

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_ISO.pdf

Download DIS_29500_appeal_letter_IEC.pdf

yk.

[Update: 7:35pm Letter transcribed <read more>]

[Update: 7:46pm Steven Pepper, ex-Chair of the Norwegian TC has also blogged this new development and has more information on Norway's position]

This post was actually meant to be a response to a journalist who asked what I thought about the February 2008 announcement by Microsoft on their "Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability". To put into context, this was released on Feb 21st, the weekend before the BRM, so it was not particularly on my mind at that time.

In March, I got a call from the journalist to comment on this issue because they were going to feature it as Microsoft Malaysia was going to make a big re-announcement or something. I gave my thoughts, but never saw the light of day of my input, so I guess its now safe to post my comment.

Groklaw has an extensive list of quotes from far more qualified industry experts, but very few posts as end users from a developing country.

To recap, the announcement is Microsoft's promise in:

1. Ensuring open connections to Microsoft’s high-volume products.
2. Documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and extensions.
3. Enhancing Office 2007 to provide greater flexibility of document formats.
4. Launching the Open Source Interoperability Initiative.
5. Expanding industry outreach and dialogue.

I have personally experienced #5, however we have yet to see progress with #1, #2 and #3. #4 however is the most interesting for me. I mean "Open Source Interoperability Initiative". That sounds great! Does this mean that Microsoft is opening up to the Open Source was of doing things? I hope so!

Unfortunately its not the case. The transcript of the Press Conference on this announcement reveals the rather major pitfalls (my emphasis):

BRAD SMITH: On the other hand, with respect to companies that are engaged in commercial distribution, or use internally, there is a need to obtain a patent license where there are applicable patent rights, and we're committing to make these patent licenses readily available. Novell already has an agreement with us that covers all of these patent rights. Some other companies, such as Xandros and others, also have a patent license. So they've already addressed all of that, and their users are already addressed. With respect to other distributors, and users, the clear message is that patent licenses will be freely available.

STEVE BALLMER:  Patents will be, not freely, will be available.

BRAD SMITH:  Readily available.

STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee. The basic economic analysis that you should go through sort of goes like this. We have valuable intellectual property in our patents, we will continue to view that as valuable intellectual property in all forms, and we will monetize from all users of that, not all developers, but for all users of that patented technology, all commercial developers, and all commercial users of that patented technology.

We also have trade secret information, which we will continue to protect, with the exception of some important trade secret information in the interoperability realm, which we will still value, but we will make available free of charge, so that people can do appropriate interoperability. So from an economic perspective you could say, in some senses, we're opening up. Yet, at the same time, we retain valuable intellectual property assets.

On reading the official announcement properly, this is clearly stated:

Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.

In a nutshell, they are saying that they will not sue "hobbyist FOSS users and developers" but they will sue FOSS distributors and enterprise end-users who fail to obtain a patent license from Microsoft. This is no bogey man. Its quite clear in the announcement, and the BSA is pretty active in Malaysia, not hesitating in sueing end user companies.

So here is my response as an IT Manager of a local manufacturing company:

As an Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) user in both work and play, I am happy that Microsoft has yet again reiterated their intention to move towards a more interoperable world. According to this initiative, they only provide covenants to FOSS developers for "non-commercial" distribution of implementations of these protocols. For customers of FOSS services, their local enterprise level support may require licensing issues, and this may hinder the local ICT growth of the FOSS ecosystem.

Will each reseller have to 'license' from Microsoft Malaysia? Additionally, this threat to sue in Malaysia may be moot, as software patents registered in the United States is not recognised here in Malaysia. There is therefore no case of infringing any 'Intellectual Property' of this type in countries outside of the US (except for Singapore, Japan, Australia and other countries who have signed on to the US-FTA agreements). Software Patents are vastly different to Copyrights.

As such, this is much of the same rhetoric we have heard from Microsoft since 2003, and I hope that they will show true initiatives of interoperability by adopting more open standards like CSS/HTML, which they recently have in  IE8, and hopefully also the ISO 26300 standard in OpenDocument Format in their office productivity suites.

What is sad about the Microsoft situation is that they seem to want to open up, but their reasons for opening up are not for the right reasons. This halfhearted approach shows in these 'so-called' initiatives. It is also evident that the reluctance to open up is not from upper management at all. Notice how Ballmer corrects Brad Smith. It appears that the vision of the CEO is not shared with the rest of the organisation. One side really needs to correct the other and re-align to better reflect the trends of today.

Here was a golden chance for Microsoft to gain some precious goodwill with the Open Source Community. Instead they botched it up just like they did before, again and again, cementing their reputation as the biggest and baddest anti-FOSS company in existence today.

How many other companies out there have such a anti-FOSS policies? Which company can be so unfriendly to their end users who prefer more choice? Why threaten when you should coax?

Anyway, that was my 2sen 3 months on. Every year Microsoft announces a new initiative for Interoperability. Hopefully next year they take genuine steps towards this goal and not just bandy about this rather overused term.

[Update: 1:20pm May 21st.
Here were Ditesh's quotes,  as an Open Source Developer, on this matter.

"Microsoft's Interoperability Initiative is geared to ensure that software (open source or otherwise) run well on Microsoft platforms. It is important to view this in its correct perspective: there has been very little effort from Microsoft to ensure its own software runs well on competing platforms. In other words, this initiative locks down users to Microsoft platforms instead of offering true interoperability which puts users and customers in charge by offering them choice and flexibility.

Interoperability must always been seen as a two way street, and history has taught us that true interoperability only works to the benefit of all members of the software industry when it is based on existing industry accepted open standards. Unfortunately, Microsoft has decided not to pursue this with their initiative and has chosen a very restrictive approach that does not benefit the overall software industry.

My second observation is that Microsoft's initiative seeks to bar open source developers from participating freely and openly in their program, as Microsoft is insisting on its protocol patents and that open source developers cannot engage in commercial development.

Firstly, no interoperability program should ever mandate that developers desist from developing and distributing commercial programs. Such a mandate would be a death-knell to the software industry and it clearly only benefits Microsoft. Any attempt to stop competition in the market by insisting on non-commercial development, as Microsoft's initiative seeks to achieve, will have extremely harmful and lasting effect on the industry as a whole.

Secondly, software patents have been rejected soundly in many countries (most stunningly in the European Union) due to the chilling effects it would have on the software industry. In fact, there has been studies showing evidence of the harm of software patents to the industry. As such, any initiative that insists on software patents will simply fail over the long term as the industry will reject initiatives that result in monopolies that hurt overall industry growth prospects."

]

yk.

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 Standards 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.

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:

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

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

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 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?]

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

So, after Doug voluntarily excused himself from TC4 [as we did not 'throw him out' as he claims], and after I gave my presentation on the BRM, and after Ditesh gave his technical evaluation of the resolutions, the TC4 Chair opened the meeting to the floor. Mr Cheong Yuk Wai, from IASA Malaysia, volunteered. We expected him to delve into the technical matters which Microsoft should have braindumped him.

Instead, we got a rant.

He started off saying that back in the old days of e-commerce, he was in discussion with the board of major banks trying to work out the best way to do internet transactions. The Secure Electronic Transaction (SET) payment method was decided to be the best method, which protects both Banks and Merchants. It failed miserably. He didn''t elaborate why, but I'll answer that later.

The issue, was that SET was designed by people in the boardroom without the proper input of the people that mattered; the Customers. I tried to find a link to our discussion here, but the next point was that "That is why we shouldn't just have one standard as we may have made a wrong choice" ... in reference to ISO 26300 (ODF) I'd assume. He did after all have the same preamble last year when he tried to present the case for TC4 not to send contradiction comments to ISO. After a year and a bit of think about this, I still do not see the link. Ho hum.

Anyway, after that, he demonstrated his Google skillz. Or so we thought. In a snazzy pre-recorded vidcast, Google was brought up, and searched for "patrick odf". The first entry of course was Patrick Durusau's plead to adopt OOXML as an ISO standard in his open letter entitled "The Importance On Being Heard". Not sure why a simple URL to the file wouldn't have sufficed.

Now Mr Cheong said that Mr Patrick Durusau was the ODF Author, Ditesh interjected and said that that was not accurate. He is the ODF Editor. There is a big difference being and author and an editor. I also wanted to interject to say that Patrick was making his remarks in a personal capacity, and his official capacity should not have been brought into discussion, nor relevant. But Mr Intel, who was suppose to remain an 'Observer' decided to play the role of the Chair and asked me to remain silent to give Mr Cheong a chance to speak. I let that slide.

Mr Cheong then went on to highlight some sections of the open letter:

"That point of agreement is that everyone at the table was heard. That may not seem like a lot to an Oracle or IBM, but name the last time Microsoft was listening to everyone in a public and international forum? At a table where a standard for a future product was being debated by non-Microsoft groups?"

With this Mr Cheong said, and I have to paraphrase, because I too am trying to grasp the logic: "See, here is our chance as Malaysia to be AT the table! So that we can contribute to the development of this format!"

[I digress here, but I think this paragraph is worth mentioning:

"... name the last time Microsoft was listening to everyone in a public and international forum? At a table where a standard for a future product was being debated by non-Microsoft groups?"

I love this subtle trick which Mr Durusau managed to get ALL the Microsofties to openly admit that Microsoft has the bad reputation of NEVER listening to the public in the development of their products. I mean All of them, in their zeal to reprint the Durusau letter, had to include this paragraph in their blogs and Press Releases, and it just made them admit that they have been all the time customer insensitive. Tee Hee]

Doug, I know you are pissed. Despite your attempts to finally get an audience for your technical review, you were still denied your chance to speak. It's not my fault you didn't tell me you were coming to town. It's neither my fault your ever faithful buddy Yuk Wai seems to miss all his official emails, faxes and follow up phone calls. Maybe you need a better support team here in Malaysia. Get rid of the crud, me says.

Anyway, this is in response to your latest rant, "Elephants have good memories"

You seem to think I'm referring to your body size when I said "Elephant in the room." I didn't mean to, and you shouldn't need to feel so self conscious. Ditesh actually used that idiom while you were outside, which was exactly what TC4 was doing, and being polite about not talking about the fact that Microsoft, a vendor (horrors) is in the room. I did add ".. but he's outside now", and was scowled at by the Chair. See, he is fair!

I have taken time out at the end of this long day, to respond to all your queries in your last post, not because I need to, but because I guess, it probably the best thing. And I can.

Now to your facts and my response:

Man! I just missed the event of the week! Last weekend, I heard that PIKOM was going to hold a 'debate' between OOXML pushers vs OOXML detractors on what position PIKOM should take in the Malaysian vote. I was invited initially because I was the 'lucky' one to go to the BRM. Unfortunately the rules started changing in between, and on Monday, we were told that the master debaters were restricted to members of PIKOM.

Hey, PIKOM is free to change the rules and after all, it's their computer association, and I by right have no say in how they run things!

So I wrote it off, thinking that I'd get to hear whatever they have to contribute in the next Technical Committee meeting anyway. Plus, TC4 is the proper forum where the issues should be raised and dealt with. I proceeded to make plans with the family for a pre-holiday night.

Little did I know, the PIKOM debate just now, was a blast: a mini TechEd of sorts happened! I don't know the details, because I'm just hearing this from second hand sources, and I do hope that someone from the meeting will blog about this. Here's what I gathered:

Right here in little ol' KL, Microsoft flew in OOXML experts from around the world! Doug Mahugh, the OOXML evangelist turned up from USA, Oliver Bell based in Singapore was shuttled in, Mr Ex-Ecma, Jan van den Beld also conveniently happen to be in the vicinity, 7 timezones away. Also attending was a Senior Microsoftie who supposedly stomped around alot, and the customary Microsoft Malaysia hanger on. The entire pro-OOXML delegation were Microsoft employees!

On the other side to balance out the OOXML debate, representing the industry, were employees of Oracle, Google, IBM, and two local ISVs!

Now PIKOM is the "Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia" which is supposed to represent the local Computer Industry's interests in the Malaysian ecosystem. Their membership is vast and varied, ranging from large MNCs down to small computer resellers and ISVs. They are mainly famous for their PIKOM "PC Fair" which is a pretty darn large "Cash-and-Carry" electronics fest, which I love going to.

Other than that, PIKOM is also represented in both TC4 and ISC-G in SIRIM, the Malaysian Standards body.  Their varied member companies and exposure to Malaysia's ICT economy means that their opinion has significant value in our discussions. In all the decisions on OOXML in the past year, they voted against the fast tracking of DIS 29500 (OOXML), as they correctly based their decision on the technical evidence presented at the TCs.

Tonight however, was a different story. Microsoft brought in 5 Microsoft employees to back the pro-Microsoft's single vendor "Faster Track" format (OOXML). The "Hey, Not So Fast" Standards side however brought in a mix of ICT competitors which themselves, compete on many levels and yet are united on this matter. Additionally they represent a larger chunk of the ICT sector in Malaysia.

I don't know what took place in the meeting, because I wasn't there, but it seems Microsoft certainly pushed hard to justify the case for OOXML and why Malaysia should change its vote from "Abstain" to "Approve". I don't think the 'other side' needed to do much; the evidence is right in front of everyone's eyes. If PIKOM represents the industry view, and Microsoft is just a mere member in its roster, then the consensus is blatantly clear.

PIKOM, I hope you do the right thing, because at the moment it looks like this:

So you'd better weigh your decision carefully, and allow the scale to tip accordingly.

yk.

[Preamble: my opinions are mine alone, and may not represent Malaysia's official positions. We have "Technical Committees" and "Industrial Standards Committees" and "Department of Standards" and "Ministries" to decide on this matter. The following is merely what I, as an unpaid volunteer and n00b to XML observed and think about this whole thing. My memory is not perfect. If you feel I misrepresented anyone or any ideas, please comment below and I WILL correct it. Promise!]

Now that the Edited Notes of the BRM have appeared, I have been getting queries on Malaysia's decisions at the BRM last week. So the best way I guess is to blog about it, and hopefully we get the story straight and not jump to any unwanted conclusions. After all, the rather concise notes of the BRM hides the extensive dialogue exchanged on each resolution.

Due to the large number of issues in contention, it was decided that issues will be raised by countries in a round-robin fashion in alphabetical order, where what countries considered the most important issues would be put up for deliberation. Malaysia's turn was the last country for the first day. Lucky us.

Our first item was to raise the issue with XML Names (MY-0016), in that there seems to be no logical and consistent naming convention in the Office Open XML (OOXML) spec. For example 'scrgbClr', 'blurRad', 'dir', 'algn' are names of attributes with different naming conventions, all of which appear within one XML element, 'outerShdw'.  I detailed this in a blog post entitled "OOXML has poor element names" more than a year ago now.

In that post, I argued that these names should conform to at least Microsoft's own developer's manual "Code Complete" by Steve McConnell. Additionally, it was found that in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 "Rules for the structure and drafting of Internationa Standards" (2004) it clearly states  (page 11, my emphasis):