BRM is done... time to sleep :-)
Well, the BRM is over and I can only describe the week as a lot of technical work and a lot of great people I was lucky enough to meet and exchange ideas with. The objective of the BRM was to work with all of the National Body delegations in the room and improve the specification on a technical level -- and that we did. There were many technical changes the delegates made to really get consensus on some of the more challenging issues, but all of these passed overwhelmingly once they were updated. The process really worked (it was very cool).
The meeting closed with clapping and cheering, folks were really happy about the improved proposals for the specification and it was a very positive experience for me personally.
As it is only about an hour since the meeting closed I still don't know what is being said in the blogosphere, I guess we'll be seeing that over the coming days and weeks.
I'm deeply impressed by the thoughtful consideration and strong commitment shown by the NB delegates to improve this specification and I want to thank them all. It is clear that the process worked.
This is short, I'm heading out to celebrate... more on Monday.
-Brian
Comments
Anonymous
February 29, 2008
Take a good rest first. You earned it!Anonymous
February 29, 2008
A pivotal meeting of international delegates to decide the fate of Microsoft's Open XML finishedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
Congratulations Brian (and the rest of the team over in Geneva)! It sounds like it was a very fruitful week. JasonAnonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
I know my question is out of context, but i really want to know is there any way to reduce the size of .xls file progrmatically (i.e removing all formatting etc. by using any tag in SpreadsheetML )Anonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
Yay! Sounds like a win to the consumer to me.Anonymous
February 29, 2008
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Either you are in denial or your definition of "success" is a very loose one indeed. The BRM managed to discuss only a small fraction of all the technical comments and dispositions, most were left undecided and the ECMA dispositions were not even voted into the final draft - the final vote on the lump of all remaining ECMA dispositions was 4 to 4, with many abstentions. Thus, the spec sent out for the 30 day ballot has 200 minor editorial comments fixed but only 20 or so technical comments addressed, so it is only marginally improved. The spec is nowhere near finished, and it should have no chance of being accepted as a standard in its current state. The BRM failed miserably in addressing all comments and reach consensus on a final document for the 30 day ballot. In what way does this mean that the process "worked" for DIS29500?Anonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
I cannot fail to see that what you describe, and what really happened, are opposites on a scale. So, why do you do it? Are you paid to misrepresent the outcomes? I could understand that you expected the outcome to be more favourable to Redmond, what with all the incentives (which some would describe as bribes, and I cannot really disagree here) that Microsoft spent. But the outcome is: many more people than you actually thought would think that OOXML is a bad "standard", that it would be wiser for Microsoft to finally abide by the majority, and not try to whip it into submission. If OOXML were as good as you claim, wouldn't it need to be more concise, complete, and actually implementable? In short, would it not have to be more like ODF, a standard that Microsoft helped to form? Ciao, DschoAnonymous
February 29, 2008
When you've recovered Brian: is it true what Stefan G (above) says? I would hope that all your work on improving the spec wasn't for naught! (And besides, I would like to see those changes integrated into Office--many of them really will benefit users.) Does the final, to-be-voted-on document not include all the dispositions?Anonymous
February 29, 2008
The Ballot Resolution Meeting for DIS 29500 (Open XML) has concluded on a very positive note. I hearAnonymous
February 29, 2008
The Ballot Resolution Meeting for DIS 29500 (Open XML) has concluded on a very positive note. I hearAnonymous
February 29, 2008
I think you had a very nice dream. It was not a resounding success in reality. Much of the needed work was not accomplished and the vote clearly reflects that. More P votes abstained than voted for or against combined. Add to that the protest non-votes. Sorry Brian, this was not a victory at all. Fast-tracking is not the answer if you want this to really succeed.Anonymous
February 29, 2008
Well, it is obvious. Most people only get to see the first post (a far fetched theory, but that's probably what he thinks) Right now all what MS can do for survival is try to make this look like a huge victory. A victory for the consumers, indeed.Anonymous
February 29, 2008
Dear Brian After you wake up I can also 'rest assured' you'll be more than refreshed having obviously slept for over a week now. Please tell me how your position has improved in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of fast-tracking ooxml to ISO standard recognition in comparison to where you were at on Sep. 5th 2007? Best regards SakariAnonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
"I'm deeply impressed by the thoughtful consideration and strong commitment shown by the NB delegates to improve this specification and I want to thank them all. It is clear that the process worked." Yes, by fast-tracking an immature specification you made it nearly impossible to get a decent result. The 5days BRM tried the best it can do to improve the spec, yet it turned out to be a complete failure as the final vote indicated. You guys will try to get approval anyway. So I wonder when people will say "enough is enough".Anonymous
February 29, 2008
It's always a pleasure to hear both sides of a story. Below Tim Bray describes the whole process and BRM in particular and concludes:"Summary: A lot of good work was done, but the process is irretrievably broken." http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/02/29/BRM-narrativeAnonymous
February 29, 2008
brian said: "I don't know where folks are getting there information, but it's completely innacurate. The whole point of this meeting wasn't to vote on approval of the spec, just on approval of the changes. The only reason you should (in theory) vote against the changes is if you don't believe they improve the spec." translation: Andy figures are true and i don't want to admit it: only 4 P-members voted "approve" to 80% of DIS 29500 Sad but true --CarlosAnonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 29, 2008
Brian, you're such a tease! :^)Anonymous
February 29, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
Brian said "The process really worked (it was very cool)." Regarding the "working process", the following are the number of negative votes ( abstention, or no vote, or refusal to vote ). What a consensus ! Judge by yourself , and if you don't believe me, demand ISO to disclose this numbers and check yourself Country abst+no+refusal Percentage ----------- --------------- ----------- China 1027 100.00% Ireland 1027 100.00% Ecuador 1027 100.00% Netherland 1027 100.00% Mexico 1027 100.00% Malaysia 1022 99.51% Korea (s) 1021 99.42% New Zealand 1018 99.12% Australia 1008 98.15% India 1005 97.86% Italy 995 96.88% Belgium 986 96.01% Israel 983 95.72% Kenya 970 94.45% US 966 94.06% France 965 93.96% Greece 963 93.77% Portugal 935 91.04% Japan 934 90.94% Denmark 912 88.80% Canada 886 86.27% South Africa 875 85.20% Denmark 871 84.81% Brazil 573 55.79% Switzerland 349 33.98% UK 187 18.21% Czech 7 0.68% Finland 6 0.58% Poland (O member) 4 0.39% Chile (O member) 1 0.10% Ivory Coast (MS HOD)() 0 0.00% NO (MS HOD) 0 0.00% () http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-43510/ivory-coast-represented-by-microsoft-senegal-at-the-brmAnonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
OK, something like 30 items were discussed, often (always?) modified, and then voted on, in a meeting that consumed a work week, with travel, etc. 900 to go? So in 30 more weeks of meetings, say not more then one a month, and more likely 1/qtr (or less)...does that mean that this proposal will be ready for voting AND as a spec for a reference implementation and validation test suite in not less then 30 months before a full and Validated reference implementation is available / started? Oh, and be sure to include time to spec out the by-reference parts, detail the specific patents of interest, and allow for rules changes that preclude "just voting" Standards development is (was?) honorable work, following strong engineering principles. The engineers are watching and so are Citizens. Please decide what your honor is worth.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
Here are the brief comments left at Andy's blog by the BRM convenor. That blog is the primary source of all the "negative" perspective. The convenor, to those that have checked, has always shown a great deal of integrity. In my personal opinion, he is the one to whom people should turn to for a neutral description of what happened: "Andy, I'm won't be composing a blog entry on the BRM for a bit, but I wil point out that your article contains surprising inaccuracies about what the subject of the vote was, how it worked, and what the governing rules were. A health warning is in order."Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Further to my quote from the BRM convenor, let me point out another point which may be quite significant. To those who have read Sherlock Holmes, you will remember that Holmes talks about the significance of "the dog in the night". Dr. Watson replies "but the dog didn't make any sound all night". To which Holmes replied "Exactly!". The significant point is that the BRM convenor has (so far at least) made NO comment on Microsoft blogs about inaccuracies etc., in their version of events. Interpret this as you will.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Ian, On the computerworld.com website the HoD of USA, Frank Faranc (whose technical capabilities procedural knowledge deeply impressed me during the week), is quoted saying: "Despite accusations that both Microsoft and IBM have been engaged in heavy-handed attempts at influence for and against OOXML's passage, Farance said he didn't observe any shenanigans this week. "People were doing the usual amount of lobbying," he said. "Was anybody doing anything egregious or out of process? No." " I second that. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065958Anonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
Great Work Brian! In comparison to ODF the OOXML specs are now app. 100times more rigorous investigated and patted off the dust, and even including formula specs and accessibility functions which had been simply forgotten in the ISO 1.0 specs of ODF - looks very like that the ISO process for ODF was not very comparable to that of OOXML...Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Some more insights from the other opposite: http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/02/29/ooxml-issues-not-solved-during-the-brm/ http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/geneva-day-five.html Needless to say, everyone and his dog has the right for their opinions but to me it seems that if so many feel that both the process and the BRM have completely failed then I think it should be a heads up for people to pause for a moment and listen to those people. They might be wrong, they might be mistaken, they might be mindlessly bashing the Borg, they might be unfamiliar with standards work but in the end they're frustrated and people fully happy with the affairs should give them a moment and think why they feel so differently. If not for anything then at least for the specs to come. Open or not. Thanks.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Anonymous Coward, In fact JTC1 (the mother-committee of SC34) is already considering changes to both PAS and Fast Track processes. I think most will agree that the ODF (PAS) and OOXML (FT) procedings have shown, that they could both do with a bit of - ahem - improving. :o)Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Brian, kindly change the title of your blog from "Open XML" to "Microsoft Office Open XML" Fudging phrases and words to deliberately confuse ordinary folk is simply underhanded. Day != night, up != down, no matter how many times you repeat it.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
@Jesper "consensus [...] simply means "not opposed by more than a few nations"" According to Andy, out of 32 voters, 4 voted No and 4 refused to vote in sign of protest. That means 8 nations, or 25% opposed. This is obviously NOT a consensus. Please remember that in the end of March, OOXML will not pass if there are 25% of the voters that oppose the text. @Ian Eason "the BRM convenor has (so far at least) made NO comment on Microsoft blogs about inaccuracies" Bad luck! Please read in Tim Bray's blog comments. Alex Brown wrote: "Congratulations on having written the only accurate, neutral and informative blog entry on the BRM in existence so far". Quite telling... So much for the accuracy of Brian Jones and Jason Matusow blog entries! http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/03/01/Spin#c1204389631.184471Anonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 01, 2008
By the way, could you write a post about the text improvements ? I think enough (or more correctly, a lot too much) was said about the votes.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Luc Bollen, Microsoft taking a "low profile" is what caused them so many problems to begin with. They foolishily allowed IBM to dominate the blogosphere discussion, so all anyone heard was one side. You think they're ever going to repeat that mistake? BTW, I agree that the ISO process is completely broken. How else do you explain that a 0.7 spec was approved as ODF 1.0, but OOXML 1.0 is being judged against the criteria of a 1.5 spec? Totally ridiculous.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
@Luc Way to quote me selectively - you ommitted my (all-important) qualification that I was not commenting on Tim's evaluation of the process. In other words, while Tim Bray has written a nice description OF WHAT HAPPENED, I cannot comment on how he evaluates the Fast Track process in general.
- Alex Brown.
Anonymous
March 01, 2008
Luc, I am not saying that the final vote was a consensus. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Consensus is not a vote - and vice versa.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
It is a shame that MS has the ability to buy international standard organisations. OpenXML breaks with a lot of rules for a standard and it will althrough become a ISO standard. What a world ! The only chance to free the people from the operating system monopol and office monopol is to force switch to Linux. I work for that aim - every day of my life !Anonymous
March 01, 2008
@Luc: You should'nt mess the quote. Alex wrote: "though on the bullshitty-ness of the Fast Track process, I can of course offer no comment" Cheers! DanielAnonymous
March 01, 2008
@Alex I think you missed the point of my comment to Ian. I was not commenting about the fast track process, but about the accuracy of blog entries. If Tim "[wrote] the only accurate [...] blog entry on the BRM", I concluded that the other blog entries were not accurate. Did I misunderstood this ? This being said, I should not have mentioned Brian's entry, as his post was describing his mood rather than what happened at the BRM. Sorry for this, Brian.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
@Daniel: could you please explain how I messed the quote ? Ian posted about the (in)accuracy of Andy's and Microsoft's blogs. I replied to this with a quote from Alex Brown about blogs (in)accuracy. None of us spoke about the Fast Track process. Rather, as Alex said he don't want to comment about the Fast Track process, I avoided discussing this myself and mixing both subjects. But I added a link to the full post for completeness. Please read again carefully what Ian and I wrote above, and explain your post or desist. Thanks.Anonymous
March 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
Alex, "Does anybody else think that all this commenting on comments at several removes is getting a bit silly?" I agree with you - but you really can't blame people of being, ahem, frantic to get information about what happened. The delegates are in the position that we really can't talk about anything concrete and it must be frustrating to stand next to the playing-field an not being able to see anything. I have posted some of my own thoughts on it on my blog. :o)Anonymous
March 02, 2008
Alex, as I said above, I agree with you that there is too much out of topic discussions (and I accept being responsible for a part of it). I think this is a result, as Jesper said, from frustration of not having first hand information available (due to ISO confidentiality rules), combined with the claim of overwhelming success by Microsoft bloggers, which triggered a reaction of all those which have a different understanding. If ISO had published a factual declaration just at the end of the BRM meeting, a lot of posts would have been avoided, and discussion would have been, I hope, centred about the real subject of the BRM : the text of DIS 29500 itself.Anonymous
March 02, 2008
@Luc, Jesper, But of course everything has to be checked (and also Friday evening is not a great time to mobilise ISO and IEC staff to start preparing documents - remember for them this is just another day in the office!) Imagine the outcry from the blogosphere if something was published which contained a (gasp!) inaccuracy "Vote count wrong: OOXML must fail" anyone? Rick Jelliffe has blogged recently - take a look at that ...
- Alex.
Anonymous
March 02, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2923321820080229?sp=trueAnonymous
March 02, 2008
I'm just curious... Why isn't Microsoft pouring million$ they must be spending on getting their "100% compatible" and "Open" OOXML ratified, when they really should be spending it on getting their own Office 2007 software to be "100% Compatible" with previous Office versions, not to mention the billions and billions of files still in the 97-2003 formats? My company hasn't even been discouraged by the productivity hits our users might experience because of the new ribbon. We even bought into the inflated SharePoint 2007 & Office SharePoint Services promises. Unfortunately, that was before we discovered SO MANY compatibility tool BUGS and content compatibility PROBLEMS between Office versions that we can't even begin to THINK about migrating to Office 2007! See details on Office 2007 compatibility issues here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfmtw2th_82cwpr7phn It seems to me, that if Microsoft would simply focus on getting their Office 2007 product working the way it should (and the way they've advertised that it should), and make it a lot less painful to migrate to it, that OOXML would simply become the de-facto standard... just like the old 97-2003 formats.Anonymous
March 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
Like many of the delegates who attended the BRM, I've found my return travel plans this weekend stymiedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
Like many of the delegates who attended the BRM, I've found my return travel plans this weekend stymiedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 02, 2008
Alex, "But of course everything has to be checked (and also Friday evening is not a great time to mobilise ISO and IEC staff to start preparing documents - remember for them this is just another day in the office!) Imagine the outcry from the blogosphere if something was published which contained a (gasp!) inaccuracy "Vote count wrong: OOXML must fail" anyone?" To be clear - I do not as much critizise the procedures at the BRM and IEC. I am simply saying that I understand the frustration of the people not being there. But I don't agree with them in their claims. To some people an "open process" means being able to follow it live on CNN. I simply don't agree with this notion. :o)Anonymous
March 02, 2008
Why are those unofficial figures marc is publishing have two danmark voting percentages in them. Did Jesper vote extra for Denmark ;-)Anonymous
March 02, 2008
hAl, "Why are those unofficial figures marc is publishing have two danmark voting percentages in them. Did Jesper vote extra for Denmark ;-) " Well no - not to my knowledge. The Danish vote was cast by our HoD anyways. :o) But I think it shows a real interop-nightmare ... copying a list bewteen blogs apparently shifts a few bits each time ... thereby rendering the list more and more incorrect (not to speak of the following interpretation of them).Anonymous
March 02, 2008
hAl, I just double-checked the original BRM vote-spreadsheet, and Denmark does not appear twice in this list. Pheew ;o)Anonymous
March 03, 2008
@Jesper: Does that spreadsheet use any formulas? Perhaps that's where the error comes from. :)Anonymous
March 03, 2008
nksingh, LOL - good post-BRM humour! :o) The spreadsheet is an .XLS-file ... I suppose everyone can conclude just about everything about that.Anonymous
March 03, 2008
One of the two Greek delegates paints a completely different picture than Brian does: "Brian Jones and Jason Matusow of Microsoft have said that the BRM was a success because it fulfilled its purpose, which was to make changes to the text. Although this is technically correct, if the original text got 1 out of 10 and the BRM managed to improve it to 1.1, it is somewhat misleading to call it a success." There you have it. http://elot.ece.ntua.gr/te48/ooxml/brm-clarificationsAnonymous
March 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 04, 2008
"The whole point of this meeting wasn't to vote on approval of the spec, just on approval of the changes. The only reason you should (in theory) vote against the changes is if you don't believe they improve the spec." Brian, I think the not so subtle message you are picking up from others is that many wished there had been a 'delete' vote option. That does not mean they are against Microsoft, just against MOOXML becoming an ISO standard. Most people would be completely satisfied if Microsoft Office used ODF as its default file format, and worked to improve that with the community. As you know the main resistance to what happened last week in the BRM is due to two factors:
- It would be self-defeating for ISO to have two international standards for the same purpose. We've tried having multiple standards for the same things already: power plugs, which side of the road to drive on, how to spell center, etc. It never makes things better. It seems to me that Microsoft believes there will be more profit in owning it's own 'standard' (a checkbox item for marketing and supplier reasons) so it is pushing something that does not make sense from a standards perspective (MOOXML) rather than simply doing what does and contributing to ODF. The MS FUD machine is in over-drive trying to get the whole world excited about MOOXML. But apparently they're not having any of it. The fact is, open standard formats are not supposed to be used as a competitive advantage. They are supposed to make things work together. That is why there are processes set up to allow for sufficient review and debate in specifying them. And that is why you are kicking up so much dust in your effort to short cut the process.
- Even if there was not already an ISO standard for document format yet, the right way to get an ISO standard would not be to lift one company's legacy-loaded, internally developed, error-ridden format and stuff it down the ECMA to ISO fast track and down consumers throats (at the same time). It would be to get the specification right by going through a standardization process appropriate to the job. A 6000 page spec with 1000+ changes for 100 people to review in a week? Good grief Charley Brown! The OLE references and other Microsoft hooks that remain in the document leave it clear that implementing to this spec on any other platform (without a big pile of Microsoft libraries, documentation, and technical support available) will be in reality impossible. This is not an industry neutral, well thought out for the purpose of cross-platform, cross-vender, cross-application data sharing, specification. Computing is not a zero-sum gain. The better things are, the more opportunities develop. That is what open standards enable. They are there to simplify things so things work not just across proprietary products, but across an industry. The efficiencies that get injected into the system yield pay backs to the industry. Doing the right thing in this case would mean supporting and helping improve the existing standard interfaces and formats for computing and networking, and submitting new ones where there are gaps. It's not too late for that here. A leap of faith to show Microsoft really does get it is for you use the delete option on MOOXML and join the rest of the world in supporting, improving, and using ODF as the international standard document format. If there is anything missing in ODF that is in MOOXML it can be added through the appropriate process. I feel that backward compatibility hooks, tools and filters for older Microsoft formats do not belong in this spec, but could be handled in a way that makes sense to everyone.
Anonymous
March 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 04, 2008
Please post each and every name of the US predatory monopoly conviction oversight offices (States Attorneys General, ClubBushFed, etc) so that we may forward information of your companies continued predatory behavior? Thank you.Anonymous
March 04, 2008
4 of 25 people said yes to "O"XML format and that means done? Nobody else then MS needs "O"XMLAnonymous
March 05, 2008
For those of you who haven't seen the announcement, Patrick Durusau (of anti-OOXML fame) has now changed his position as a result of what happened at the BRM, and now supports the passage of DIS29500 by the ISO. His statement on this is at http://durusau.net/. (Thanks to Jesper for the news.)