Open Malaysia

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

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?]

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.

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.

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.

Fear! That should work!

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 Mahugh really dislikes me. Boo hoo.

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:

Rumble in Kuala Lumpur!

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.

MSOOXML BRM - XML Names

[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):

BRM Resolutions and Notes available

For those interested, Alex Brown has released the Edited Notes and Resolutions of the BRM held in Geneva last week.

Please read them to see the summary of what was raised, discussed, worked on, debated and resolved by the participating countries throughout the week. Each red paragraph is equivalent to 5 to 60 minutes worth of BRM time... plus many more hours for items which were taken "off line".

So check with your local NB on what actually transpired for each item.

yk.

Financial Times on MSOOXML

Sitting on the plane last night (or was that two nights ago? I can't tell) bore a pleasant surprise when I flipped to the back page of the Financial Times of England. The esoteric subject of computer file formats was discussed, picked up by FT TechBlog journalist Maija Palmer.

It was entitled "Openness behind closed doors."

... the article in all its gloryful pinkiness.

There is a longer version of it online, but it has a different title ...  "Battle of the Geeks". I guess what works online may not always work on print. And hey, this broadsheet needs to maintain a certain level of classiness.

Anyway, what is interesting about this, is that a substantial amount of information is based on my "Geneva, Day x" series, and the funny one on "Geneva, Day Zero" blog entry. Yeah, FT even featured the walkin' talkin' stalkin' Microsoft Malaysia Rep! Maija followed up on it, and it seems Microsoft's official reason for his attendance was "to provide technical assistance". Heh.

Wait till you see the quality information he provides! [more info to come]

Anyway, its not everyday you see your blog posts featured on London's Financial Times...  albeit back page, condensed, unattributed, out-dated, and based on a blog entry of my blog entry... but hey, you take what you can.

:)

yk.

BTW, Maija makes the classic error in calling it Open OfficeXML instead of Office OpenXML. Everybody should just standardise (heh) on "MSOOXML", because that's what it is now.

Geneva, Day Five

It's finally over! I'll give it a few days before blogging about this fully, but what can I say? It certainly was something historical. I met quite a few interesting people, worked with Microsoft and other XML experts and tried my best to improve the spec as much as I could. I helped guide the Malaysian delegation, and that by itself I can safely say I am proud of my achievements.

I can vouch that everybody in the BRM did their darnest to improve the spec. Microsoft Business Partners (and there were a lot of them) took this chance to make sure that they got as much information as possible. Free and Open Source Supporters worked surprisingly well with the Microsoft techies to clarify and expand on areas. Standards Experts refined language and corrected issues which may/will/shall hinder future problems of interpretation.

Any effort was an improvement, and that by itself could mean that the BRM was a 'success'. Yes, it was a success DESPITE the what we had to work with, and DESPITE the time limits we had to work under.

The reason why I haven't been blogging since Wednesday (Day Three) was because work just caught up with me. Items which were too complex for an immediate vote had to be taken "off-line". Work had to be done in collaboration of other National Bodies who do not necessary speak your native tongue during the breaks. We had to get all the outstanding issues modified, compromised and resolved. During the meeting, we had to  zoom through the voting processes to get our efforts recorded. It was quite confusing because we had to keep an eye on updates and collaborations on our resolutions, listen out for voting items of interests, and convince fellow delegates to vote for certain items. It was quite stressful and it's no wonder people felt completely beat after the day ended at 5pm.

But the day doesn't end there. More work on the resolutions had to occur. Logistical issues like finding a room for discussion had to happen. Some active members were shuttling from room to room to resolve multiple issues. Email and IM collaborations occurred and getting the 'blessings' from Ecma had to happen.

We eventually found out that if any changes affected current implementations it would certainly be rejected. This seriously compromised any elegant solutions, and it forced us to be mindful of the "existing corpus of documents" in the wild. I personally don't believe that that should be our problem, but there was a large and vocal voting bloc which would oppose any changes to the spec which would 'break' Ecma 376.

This was why appeasing Ecma had to happen. Even though they rushed their Ecma International Standard, and Microsoft took the risk in shipping Microsoft Office 2007 last year, we now have to bear the burden of having to support its limitations. This also means that future maintenance changes would get harder and harder. One day I will blog about the process of getting a relatively simple change into the spec.

The final day was absolute mayhem. We had to submit decisions on over 500 items which we hadn't have the time to review. All the important issues which have been worked on repeatedly happened to appear on this final day. So it was non-stop important matters. Unfortunately I was caught up in a change from Malaysia, so I must have missed deliberating on a few important matters.

But it's all over now. Due to the quirks in the voting mechanisms, a reported 98.4% of Ecma resolutions were approved. This on the surface projects an impression that the BRM is a resounding success. Unfortunately this is not the sentiment of the majority of participants, as Frank Farance, the very active and positive head of delegation for the United States of America, said publicly of this matter:

"Virtually every comment we processed did not survive unedited," he said.

The 80 percent of comments that were not discussed during the meeting were put to a "default vote," resulting in the automatic adoption of ECMA's recommendations without modification by delegates, he said.

This is not in criticism of the Convener Mr Alex Brown. He had a monumental task ahead of him at the beginning of the BRM. The chips were stacked high against him. It was not the failure of the National Bodies which attended. It was merely a failure of the process. And it may not be the failure of ISO as a process for creating standards, but mainly because a client chose the wrong method in forcefeeding a large draft standard in the conservative process of the ISO.

It was a failure of the Fast Track process, and Ecma for choosing it. It should have been obvious to the administrators that submitting a 6000+ page document which failed the contradiction period, the 5 month ballot vote and poor resolution dispositions, should be pulled from the process. It should have been blatantly obvious that if you force National Bodies to contribute in the BRM and end up not deliberating on over 80% of their concerns, you will make a lot of people very unhappy.

I think coming into the BRM at the beginning of the week, some people were optimistic that this could make a positive difference. But judging from the reactions from the National Bodies who truly tried to contribute on a positive manner, without having their concerns heard let alone resolved, they leave the BRM with only one decision in their mind come March 29th.

The Fast Tracking process is NOT suitable for ISO/IEC DIS 29500. It will fail yet again.  And this time it will be final.

And please now, don't say we didn't try ...

yk.