Partager via

Ecma Open XML and the Portuguese National Body

  • Article

As noted in Bob Sutor’s blog, on other anti-Open XML blogs, and on various comments to previous posts of my own, a question has come up as to what is going on at the National standards body in Portugal. The main point of contention at the moment is about the number of participants in the technical committee and who those participants are. I made some inquiries and here is what I have found out:

****

The Portuguese national standards body convened Technical Committee 173 for “Document Description Language” on June 26 for its first meeting (8 members). The Microsoft representative was voted to be the chair of the TC.

Based on the TC’s own decision to expand to 20 members, a public invitation to join the TC started June 26. Acceptance by the National Body (not the TC) was on a first-come-first-served basis. On July 13th, the National Body closed the admittance of new members to the TC. They made this determination based upon three factors.

1) Broad national representation – the TC has 2 software associations, 4 public institutions, 1 public agency, 1 city hall, 1 academic individual expert, and 11 private IT companies representing small, medium, and large businesses.

2) The hosting site, Insituto de Informática, had logistical limitations that were factored into the decision.

3) The National Body determined that 20 was a reasonable number for the dimensions of the TC, and that once membership had been filled, any changes to membership is possible through the swapping of entities as long as the maximum number remains 20.

During the meeting on July 16th, a vote was held to determine if the TC should expand membership beyond 20. The resulting vote determined to have the TC remain at 20 members.

****

So, as with all standards work, all issues may be raised and/or re-raised for consideration by the TC. My understanding is that there are ongoing discussions about the size of the group. IBM and others are not currently part of the TC and that concern has been raised within the TC. The NB as well as the TC are both focused on making sure they are operating precisely in respect to the rules of the process. From what I am hearing, the process is completely above board and being handled professionally with oversight from the NB. IBM and others are desirous of expanding the membership, and that issue will continue to be pressed by them I am sure. The TC has another meeting this week, so there will be more discussion on this as things progress.

There is no question that all over the world the competing interests in the Open XML standardization process are going to use all tactics available to them within the rules. Microsoft and its partners (particularly those who have bet their businesses on Open XML), continue to advocate that it is best to enable our customers to choose the technology that best meets the needs of their business.

Make no mistake; all parties are looking at the full picture to find strategies that will result in the outcome they desire. Provided - of course - that they do so within the context of the rules that apply to the process, this is exactly what one should expect to happen. It is going to be a very interesting next few months.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2007
    i'm from Argentina and i would like to make just one comment regarding all this DIS 29500 ISO fast-tracking process: shameful Thank you and good luck.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2007
    Jason, Who were the software associations?  BSA etc?  Were the 11 partners all Microsoft partners or only some of them?  Do you not agree it a little odd that any TC headed by a vendor's individual automatically is going to be seen as biased?  And as for the institution having insufficient room, I'm quite sure there are acres of meeting room facilities a short walk away from the Insituto de Informática. Come off it - that is an indefensible committee.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2007
    Thanks for this information.  As you say, this is a game with rules, so it's useful that somebody is taking the time to spell out the rules without jumping straight to their take on things. I agree that all sides will be acting in their own self-interest, but could you elaborate a little on what you see Microsoft's interest as?  For example, your clear preference for a short timetable suggests that you would rather get the ISO's blessing than thoroughly address the interests of people like Rob Weir, but how does a blessing without a consensus benefit Microsoft?

    • Andrew

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    Thanks - I think that answers what I'm trying to ask as well as possible given my capability to ask it at the moment. I appreciate your having taken so much time to explain your position, so I think it's only fair that I explain a little about why I asked. Essentially, the OOXML issue represents the meeting point of just about everything I don't yet understand about the computer industry - from Microsoft's corporate and technical approach to the deeper purposes of standards bodies.  By asking searching questions on blogs, I feel like I'm getting a much stronger insight into all these things. Since I now realise my previous message tripped a few of the classic anti-OOXML buzzwords (such as 'short timetable'), I should point out that I have no interest at all in digging up dirt on Microsoft - aside from the fact that the Microsoft-bashing market is thoroughly saturated, doing so would make it harder for me to get at the real truth. I generally try to keep my opinions to myself about these things until I have enough evidence to back them up, but one thing I'm increasingly convinced of is that Microsoft represents a tradition of software design that forked from the one that I've grown up watching somewhere in the early 80's, and which is now being gradually re-merged.  The result is much like you'd expect from trying to merge two gigantic codebases after all that time - some things go straight back together without anyone noticing; some things are philosophically different and need work on all sides to decide the best approach; and a vast ocean of things involve people using the same words to express subtly different concepts, then getting confused when members of the other side refuse to acknowledge truths that follow necessarily from the One True Meaning of the disputed term. I agree that our time is better spent discussing macro issues, although I think "macro issue" is itself a disputed term - you use it to refer to the big important things that everyone wants to see Microsoft doing, whereas I'm using it to mean the tiny important things that help people to understand what Microsoft is doing.

    • Andrew

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    There has been a lot of discussion of the Portugal technical committee (TC173) in the last week, and

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    Jason, There has been a lot of discussion in the comments on my own weblog post about this between Rui Seabra, of the Portuguese ANSOL, and MS's Stephen McGibbon.  Rui took the minutes that were posted on Groklaw and elsewhere. http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/default-and-supported-formats-in-notes-8-editors . He sure doesn't make it sound like the door was open from June 26 to July 13, nor that there were any "logistical limitations" since there is a larger Auditorium available at the site.  Still further, even though there was supposedly a space limit, more than the 20 people of the committee were in the room. I notice that Mr. McGibbon, who started out trying to refute Mr. Seabra's points, hasn't been back to clarify on any of these.  So if he was your source, you might try looking at other records of the meeting, including those from someone whose notes and integrity have been vouched for.

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    I can't comment on whether or not Mr. Seabra was aware of the TC or not. Clearly a broad representation of Portuguese interests were aware of it. As for the issue of the logistics, I have already commented my feelings on that. As for Stephen, I speak with him often and will pass on your request to see him blog more (I always like to see people blog more). I have known him for a few years and he is a man of integrity - period. You may not like what his opinions are - but there is a huge gulf between that and questioning his integrity. I spoke with a number of people about the TC and the situation. I think the representation of what is happening that I put in my blog is accurate and I was as careful as I could be to represent the facts neutrally and to clearly separate my opinion from those facts. Hope that helps. Jason

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    Ed ... I gave direct and stright forward answers to questions on your blog. Rui confirmed them too. The ONS representative took 30 mins at today's meeting to carefully reexplain the process and to refute your allegations of any impropriety. I believe he also said IBM had written to say they accepted the process and to submit written comments.

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    All that Rui confirmed is that my understanding about "seats" was inaccurate, that it was decided before the meeting rather than at the OK Corral.  So, that's been clarified.  But as to my comments on Jason's original posting here, there's no "clarification", only contradiction. In my more recent post, Rui even claims his comment on this thread, left seven hours ago, hasn't posted.

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    Ed - please help me clarify something. Did Rui leave a comment on my blog? I have been staying up on the comments all day and making sure to post immediately between meetings. I would not delete a comment from him (just look at some of the personally insulting stuff I make sure gets posted on other thread).  I did not see one today but just went back and double-checked. I am about to catch a flight, but later tonight I will check again to make sure any comments get posted. Jason

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    I did make a comment.

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2007
    «The ONS representative took 30 mins at today's meeting to carefully reexplain the process and to refute your allegations of any impropriety.» The ONS representative took 30 minutes excusing the ONS from any responsabilities, detailing how it behaved and how it unilaterally decided (confirming that the TC vote was a bad taste joke).

  • Anonymous
    August 01, 2007
    Jason, Rui left a comment on my blog saying that he had left a comment here (see #9 and #12 in comments http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/bob-sutor-why-ooxml-will-not-be-an-isoiec-standard-in-2007?opendocument&comments )  I suggested to him that he repost.

  • Anonymous
    August 02, 2007
    FYI on this thread. Mr. Seabra's comments were filtered out of my comments control panel. I went back and dug them out of the hundreds of SPAM postings that hit my site weekly. Thank you Ed for letting me know - all of his comments are up now and I will continue to check the spam lists from now on. Jason

  • Anonymous
    August 04, 2007
    Hi Jason, I take it that this is an admission that OOXML is not a truly open and implementable standard, and that the only way that Microsoft can get it approved is by rigging the votes of member nations?  Microsoft's rationalization and condoning of this kind of manipulation is troubling.   Why doesn't Microsoft just fix the technical and legal shortcomings in the 6000 page OOXML proposal and turn it into a good standard, instead of resorting to these kind of tactics?  Regardless, it is clear that Microsoft has little respect for the technical quality requirements which are the cornerstone of specification usability. Approval under these circumstances would make a mockery of the ISO mission statement, "Why Standards Matter," found at: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html Thank you.

  • Anonymous
    August 04, 2007
    a. I find 2 1/2 weeks an incredibly short time period for any company to get organised to get on this committee without prior warning (despite the first come first served basis). This is hardly likely to result in fair representation. This type of process allows committee members to invite "mates" to be the first in. b. I find the sudden upsurge in committee members around the world for this process tragic-comic.

  • Anonymous
    February 18, 2009
    With Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation . Question: What does the "no" ISO vote mean for Office OpenXML? What happens next? Zemlin: It means that the thousands of comments that have been submitted will have to be taken seriously,..