Open XML - The Vote in Sweden
The latest chapter in the Open XML standardization story is focused on Sweden. There are accusations flying, emails floating around, and no shortage of theories about what has been happening there. As you can image I have been following up with a number of people and here are the issues and what I have found out so far.
Microsoft encouraged partners to participate in Sweden:
An employee in Sweden sent an email to 2 partners that was inconsistent with company policy. When he realized what he had done, he did the right thing by immediately reaching out to the two partners to address the situation. He contacted them by phone and email letting them know that they should disregard the mail. Here is what I know about this situation so far:
- 2 partners were sent an email making a request to participate in the Swedish process, telling them that they would be responsible for paying the membership fee if they did, but also making a related reference to marketing activities and extra support.
- Within hours both partners were contacted by the same MS employee who initiated the mail to notify them that the information in the email was incorrect and that they should disregard it.
- When the Microsoft Sweden management team became aware of the situation they proactively notified SIS, the national standards body, of this situation and shared the communications with them. There was no impact on the vote due to this situation.
- It is important to note that instructions from corporate to our regional teams around the world throughout this process have been to completely adhere to the rules of the national standards bodies, and that any party wishing to take part in the national standards body is directly responsible for paying any related fees. This means partners must decide whether to participate and vote based on their own determination as to the importance of this standard to their business. To say it more directly, offers to pay standards participation fees are totally inconsistent with our internal policy.
Organizations joining the committee late in the process:
Yes, many organizations joined the committee very late in the process. There were parties both for and against the vote that joined late. The local team did reach out to partners and encouraged them to join the process. Many of the partners had been called by IBM as well, encouraging them to join the process and to vote against the proposed standard. Many of these companies are business partners for both IBM and Microsoft and have business interests related to office automation technologies – thus, they were contacted by both firms. It is critical to note that the addition of voting members at that time was completely within the rules of the national standards body. While there are many arguments to be had over the relative merits of this rule…it is a rule nonetheless. If you are looking for other situations to think about – look at the late addition of Red Hat (and many others…I know) to Committee V1 in the United States. Their presence was simply to vote no – not based on deep technical review – but because it is in their business interests have Open XML fail to achieve ISO/IEC standardization. Google joining the SIS late is the same thing. So – for both sides, seeking to have participation of organizations with interests is within the boundaries of the rules.
The issue with the email is extremely unfortunate as it casts a pall over the hard work of so many, and the process as a whole. The Swedish team has been working for months with the national standards body to address technical issues and as a participating member in deliberations by the committee. The companies that joined the process did so of their own accord – they were being contacted by both Microsoft and IBM. They had complete autonomy to choose how to vote – which they did this week.
If Open XML is to be approved for standardization at JTC1, it needs to do so by the book. We may all disagree about the book (witness the arguments about no with comments vs. yes with comments), but it is critical that these activities remain within the realm of ethical behavior as well as behavior defined by the rules for the JTC1 process. In this case, I understand the concern raised by this error in judgment by an MS employee. The only thing I can say is that the right things were done as the issue was identified. The process and vote at SIS were not affected.
*********
Updated - Aug. 30: The Swedish national body looks like it will invalidate the existing yes vote and move to abstain. The public statement points to a proceedural reason for invalidating the vote. The public statement also says that there will not be another vote prior to Sept. 2. I don't have any other info on this than that at the moment, but will keep up with things as possible.
Comments
Anonymous
August 29, 2007
Jason you say: "Yes, many organizations joined the committee very late in the process. There were parties both for and against the vote that joined late." Here is the list I have of those voting yes that joined late...can you please provide the list of those who joined late to vote "no"? Camako Data AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Connecta AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Cornerstone Sweden AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Cybernetics (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Emric AB, Exor AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), Fishbone Systems AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Formpipe Software (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), FS System AB, Google, HP (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), IBizkit AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), IDE Nätverkskonsulterna (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), IT-Vision AB, Know IT (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Modul1 (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Nordic Station AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), ReadSoft AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), Sogeti (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Solid Park AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), SourceTech AB, Strand Interconnect AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner) and TietoEnator (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner)Anonymous
August 29, 2007
Peter, are you sure Google voted yes? ;-)Anonymous
August 29, 2007
Did Google vote yes?Anonymous
August 29, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 29, 2007
According to the FFII site they were ready to block any approval vote if no more than 8 MS partners would have joined. http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-17705/ffii-sweden-on-magic-support <blockquote>Then together with others, we gathered eight new members into the SSI working group, says Hallén. The idea was that they would vote no and that way, cancel out the seven yes votes that we knew had joined the group</blockquote>Anonymous
August 29, 2007
Oj, vilken uppmärksamhet måndagens röstning i SIS har fått, vi hade verkligen inte förväntat oss detAnonymous
August 29, 2007
Oj, vilken uppmärksamhet måndagens röstning i SIS har fått, vi hade verkligen inte förväntat oss detAnonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason- Twist & writhe out of it as you may try, don't you think Red Hat & Google are different than Jorge's Qwik-Soft of Panama?Anonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason, I'm sorry but this seems like "an ends justify the means" type argument. Ethics, in my mind, is more than simply following all the rules. There is an important distinction between what's right and what's allowed. I raise my same arguments from a prior post: if the goal is to get an ISO certification using all available resources, tactics, and strategies, what is the point? One party achieves a desired result that is questionable from the standpoint of a process involving consensus and compromise. You are correct, IBM and many others have raised issues and opposed fast-track approval of OOXML. Why is there no effort to reach out, work through issues, and get to something the world actually agrees on, rather than just ramming something through the process? Again, the outcome will be the result of heavy-handed lobbying and ISO just looks the worse for it.Anonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason, i will say it again: shameful The technical commites has an obligation to do technical work, no to cast votes to defend commercial interests. The same had happened at Incits/V1, sudden afluence of "interested" members who voted yes and virtually provided no technical comment or feedback, only oposition to critic: . 3Sharp -> Microsoft gold partner, mentioned in [1], front page says "3Sharp is a key contributor to Microsoft's new Data Encryption Toolkit" . Advaiya -> 7 ocurrences of "Microsoft" in front page . Mimosa Systems -> Microsoft gold certified, flagship product is "Mimosa NearPoint for Microsoft Exchange Server" . NextPage -> Microsoft certified partner . Peters & Associates -> Microsoft gold partner, 10 ocurrences of "Microsoft" in front page . Reality Mobile -> flagship product transmit real-time video and geospatial coordinates WHAT THIS HAVE TO DO WITH OFFICE DOCUMENT STANDARDS???? . Xinnovation -> Microsoft gold certified , flagship product built around Microsoft Office software . mindjet: Microsoft Gold Certified Partner -> flagship product supports Office 2007 . z5 technologies, one of flagship products runs XP with MS Office, mentioned in [1] ... [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2007/07/09/open-xml-solution-demonstration-at-wpc.aspx ( extracted from: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2007/07/16/us-technical-committee-reaches-deadlock.aspx#3925002 )Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
In the words of John Lennon, how do you sleep at night?Anonymous
August 30, 2007
"An employee in Sweden sent an email to 2 partners that was inconsistent with company policy." Righhhht because we know MS would never employ such tactics. We all know you guys always compete on technical merits!Anonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason... COME ON!!!! ... please... at this point ..honestly... what you (MS) are doing is making a complete farse of the ISO process.. in my opinion ... again at this point.. ISO because all of MS shinanigans, has been completely discredited.... if anyone with enough $$ can rig the voting.. then .. well.. what is the point.. .. i think MS should do the "right" thing and just pull openXML... it will be almost guaranteed... that if this gets voted as a standard... after every under handed trick (but allowed by the rules, like it is any consilation) has been pulled, ISO , forget MS..your rep if far from redeemable, will be seen as another corporate controlled entity.. instead of what they should be known as a " International Standards Organization".. and all thanks to MS..Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
"This will help them with government procurement and getting more pilots in place, etc.etc. I have no truck with that - but it makes me question your comment." What you are saying have nothing to do with what i said: the people at NBs and TC are there to work and to review the technical merits of documents proposed as standards and to make suggestions, critics, comments and observations about them. This should have nothing to do with marketing , procurement and the stuff you mentioned in your response. If you believe that competing companies are doing extra-technical "things" for commercial interests, you are moraly and ethicaly obligated to send a formal complain to ISO JTC1. By the way, this Sweden fiasco seems to have been nulled: i have read that SiS just published a press release saying that the decision on Monday is annulled, and Sweden will likely abstain from voting on OOXML ( DIS 29500 ), due to procedural errors. http://sis.se/pdf/OOXML0830_Final.pdf ShamefulAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason, As far as I have read about this issue I can't see any evidence that any MS rep tried to convince the "extras" to leave or tell them like you are us now that this was a nono. The events has definitely show about the flaws in the swedish rules, but RichL has asked the important question I think. Where has the gentleman-ship gone?Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The Microsoft employee that sent out the letters must have had some backing from management if he promised financial incentives if they went to the vote? or was he a manager himself? That over 20 Microsoft partners decided to join the working group on their own initiative the day before the meeting does sound a little too good to be true. Is there anyone at these companies that have read the OOXML spec? It is a disgrace to the people who had been working hard with the massive OOXML spec document in the working group for six months. Independently of how things happened in the SIS case, Microsoft's reputation in Sweden has been seriously hurt for some time to come. Sweden is a small coutry with a limited IT press. This story even made it into the largest daily newspaper (Dagens Nyheter) in which it was made clear that something unethical had happened.Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
Marc - I just saw the SIS decision. I will amend my top-level posting. I think everyone is aware that IBM has lead the anti-Open XML campaign...and that they are motivated by commercial interests to do so. That is the nature of competition - I don't know that puts me in a postion to be ethically bound to file a complaint with ISO. I will, though, point out the points as we go through this process. You get no disagreement from me that the situation in Sweden with the email was really unfortunate. Yes, I would like to see the positive vote - but more importantly it will have more of a perception impact on the whole process that I am sorry to see.Anonymous
August 30, 2007
Microsoft Sweden... :) wohoooooAnonymous
August 30, 2007
Jason, I completely disagree that "everyone is aware that IBM has lead the anti-Open XML campaign". As I have stated before to Brian Jones, there are plenty of people in plenty of organizations who actively disagree with the attempt to ram a poorly designed and bloated spec through the process. IBM is not the leader in this, although there are a few IBM folks who are actively involved. Repeatedly focusing on IBM is simply an attempt, and a weak one, to get people to see this as two large corporate entities having a disagreement. My company is tiny, and I am not fundamentally opposed to Open XML, but many of the initial critiques and complaints about Open XML came from me and others like me, not beholden to any large company, but simply trying to deal as ISVs with the mess that Open XML represents. And similarly, many of us have also worked on making ODF better. So, why have we tried to make ODF better and tried to make Open XML go away? Because OASIS has shown a willingness to make changes and listen to comments. Microsoft, and later ECMA, has shown no such willingness. I made comments and suggestions on various Microsoft forums about Open XML and things that should be fixed, all before it became an ECMA standard, and not a single one was responded to or modified. There was no effort to listen to valid concerns from a Microsoft business partner such as myself who was also trying to create a better standard (for purely selfish reasons, really, as I wanted to develop solutions using Open XML). Brian Jones has been a real gentleman, and I appreciate that, but there still has been no willingness to listen and hear. It was always "We need to do this for backwards compatibility", which makes no technical, political or business sense in the context of the suggestions made. But this is not "led by IBM". I do not work for IBM. Sam Hiser does not work for IBM. Stéphane Rodriguez does not work for IBM. Andy Updegrove does not work for IBM. Yet all of us, and many others, have first worked to convince Microsoft to modify this standard, then worked to convince people it was fatally flawed. Repeating the IBM mantra over and over and over isn't working. You may, and I truly can't tell, be convincing yourselves, but you are not convincing the public. This is not IBM vs. Microsoft, no matter how you much you might want it to be. This is Microsoft vs. common sense, and it is greatly to be regretted, especially for those of us who really had hoped to be able to work with this spec/standard, and who have business interests with Microsoft.
- Ben Langhinrichs
- Anonymous
August 30, 2007
You've been caught with your hand in the till, and your defence is that others do it too? Try that one in court and see how far you get. IBM have been encouraging companies to vote against? Really? Did they try also to openly bribe those companies with "extra support"? No, they didn't. Or, at least, they didn't get caught! You did. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not pick up $200. Cheers,
- Mike
Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The ISO voting on Open XML is delivering even more drama this week than I expected. In addition to theAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The ISO voting on Open XML is delivering even more drama this week than I expected. In addition to theAnonymous
August 30, 2007
"everyone is aware that IBM has lead the anti-Open XML campaign" Strongly disagree with this. The OpenXML format is bad enough that it hasn't needed anyone to run an anti- campaign, except insofar as is necessary to watch for (and correct) situations like the one you blogged about.Anonymous
August 30, 2007
A simple question then: why does Microsoft not work together with the rest of the world to improve ODF? Why push OOXML?Anonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 30, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 31, 2007
Jason, Here's a suggestion... Go to your boss and tell him/her/them to fully support ODF as the standard for MS Office products or you will quit. Perhaps you don't see just how down-to-earth that suggestion really is but seriously...Anonymous
August 31, 2007
What a shame, even ISO seems to be corrupt!
- Payed by Micrsoft.
Anonymous
August 31, 2007
Jason Will / can you categorically state that MS made no verbal offers of "Marketing Support" (AKA Bribery) to the other 18 first-time attendees in exchange for their "yes" vote? As Chicago sang........."The whole world's watching"Anonymous
August 31, 2007
Pingback from http://blogs.sun.com/sdsouza/entry/it_is_the_processAnonymous
August 31, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 31, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 01, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 01, 2007
Wasn't the president of the Swedish committee, the one responsible for procedings like the Swedish voting, himself strongly against the OOXML standardization. I don't think that if the vote situation would have been different that such a mistake would have been made...Anonymous
September 03, 2007
"I think everyone is aware that IBM has lead the anti-Open XML campaign...and that they are motivated by commercial interests to do so." No. I am not convinced. It is just another dirty lie. You know its false.Anonymous
September 03, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 03, 2007
microsoft try to corrupt, and now, microsoft guys try to lie. shame on you. face the truth : as first estimation was "no", sudently serveral dozen of new company registrer to vote (including google, that's true, but almost all new comapny voted "yes") and now we "learn" that microsoft encourage partner to vote "yes", you have nothing to add, that's totally clear.Anonymous
September 03, 2007
"You get no disagreement from me that the situation in Sweden with the email was really unfortunate" what!?!!!! unfortunate ? you better to learn the right words : CORRUPTION.Anonymous
September 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 04, 2007
Jason: The real problem isn't the mistake of the employee. The real problem is MS pushing (by dubious means) a seriously defective standard. MS knows that standard is bad for everyone but MS. That is what makes Microsoft a sleazy company.Anonymous
September 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 22, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 22, 2007
The comment has been removed