But never underestimate Microsoft’s determination and wealth, or its willingness to act unethically, even illegally, to get what it wants. The maneuvers to get this thing rubber-stamped as a “standard” will go on out of public view. That, my friends, worries me.

Oh, btw, I just reread your last sentence. It starts with:
“To portray the reception of 19
contradictions”

I would suggest to tone that down a bit as the exact nature of the 19 reactions (or 18 or 20) is not fully known as far as I know.

Take a look at the JTC1 Directives.

Section 9.8 “Votes on Fast Track DISs” says “The criteria for approval are given in 9.6″. And according to section 9.6, approval requires, “At least two-thirds of the P-members voting shall have approved.”

You are correct that this is a “combined vote”. But the structure of the approval rules is such that the two-thirds approval of voting P-Countries are required. The votes cast by any other countries, not matter how many votes, cannot approve the ballot if the P-Countries don’t agree.

However, the combined vote of non-P-Countries could prevent the approval of a DIS even if the P-Countries are voting for a DIS. So the effect is the larger membership has veto power if they vote in numbers, but they have no ability to advance the approval of the ballot. They only have the power of a negative vote. Only P-Countries have the power to positively approve a DIS.

I think the SC34 document, by saying “not all members” is making the point that the requirement is for two-thirds approval of all P-Countries who cast a vote, not two-thirds approval of all P-Countries.

These is the same voting rules that applied to ODF in its ballot last year. In that case we had 23 P-Countries voting plus an additional 11 other NBs. All 34 votes were for approval.

As far as I understand from the JTC1 directives the ballot is commbined
“Section 13.3 specifies the vote as “combined” and section 9.5 defines that a “combined vote” includes the P-members of JTC1, all ISO member bodies and IEC national committees.”

That means the ballot will be all 103 voting members and not just the P members.
“To pass, at least two-thirds of the respondents voting (not “all P-members”) shall have approved and not more than one-quarter of the votes cast are negative (per section 9.6).”

For reference:
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0779rev1.htm

With 16/30 (53%) on the record as having problems with the OOXML proposal, I’m going to guess that another 50% (i.e. 77% total) are quietly having problems.

I thing that MS has a lot of lobbying to do just to prevent an embarrassing rout.

this is classic microsoft speak.

they are masters at redefining processes to meet their needs.

I hope this fails like a ton of bricks.

we must read ECMA == Microsoft to understand this? mmm i get it :-)

I had read right past the “…of all votes cast…”

Darn ;)

Ah well… guess I’ll have to live with MS trying to sway 6 out of 16.

RAS

See http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/trackback.php?id=2007020812133683

The 2nd requirement (no more than 25% negative votes) counts votes of more than just P-Countries. In the 5-month ballot, O-Countries, and even the broader list of ISO countries can vote as well.

Certainly I’d expect that the core of NB’s who vote will consist of P-Countries, since they are the ones with the interest and the expertise and the commitment to review standards of this type. So if there is not significant broader participation in the ballot, then the 25% might be the binding constraint. But if there is broader participation, then the 2/3 P-Country constraint might be the killer.

As much as I enjoy your writting, I think your math is flawed in favor of MS.

From what you’ve got, I understand for OOXML to pass, it must:
a) have at least 66.66% members approved
AND
b) have no more then 25% against

Let’s say all 30 members vote.

In order to fail the first requirement, 11 members need to vote against or abstain.

In order to fail the second requirement, 8 members would need to vote against.

MS actually only needs 8 members to vote against for their OOXML to fail.

That is – of course – if my math is correct ;)

RAS

It will be interesting to see how many comments are “in support”. I have a guess, but it is just a guess.

Thanks for putting things in the proper context.

I’ve heard through the webvine that there were some interesting remarks in the German and Canadian contradiction vote. Remarks to the effect that Microsoft should explain exactly why they didn’t use ISO 26300 (ODF) as the basis of their XML file format effort; making the necessary eXtensions if needed, and submitting those issues to the OASIS ODF TC.

You know, the “X” in XML problem Microsoft has yet to explain.

Could you verify and perhaps post a comment on the phrasing of what i take to be a challenge to Microsoft to finally come clean with their objections to ODF?

I have to say, if the webvine is right, Germany and Canada are cutting to the chase in a way that ought to clear the air of smoke, billage and confusion. And do so rather quickly.

~ge~