I believe that ECMA/MS have until Jan 14, 2008 to provide their suggestions on how to resolve the comments. The individual NBs then have six weeks to accept the ECMA/MS suggestions or make suggestions of their own on how to resolve the comments.

Then, ideally, at the BRM the NBs would work together, through the project editor, to achieve consensus on how to resolve the comments as you stated in you post.

David Farning

To be precise, Microsoft/Ecma does not produce the new version of the standard, but the Project Editor does, according to the BRM’s instructions.

The final text is due one month after the BRM. If an NB notices a clerical error in the Project Editor’s work, e.g., the BRM agreed to a change but the change is not transcribed into the final DIS, then this should probably be raised directly with the SC Secretariat and the Project Editor. That’s what I would do, though the case is not explicitly covered in the Directives.

Note that the BRM is being asked to “agree to a text.” So changes voted on at the BRM should be very specific, word for word changes, not open ended requests to “clarify” or such. So the Project Editor’s work after the BRM should be entirely clerical.

(Yes, it is ironic that one of the most important standards organizations in the world has rules written so vaguely. On the other hand the Fast Track procedures were pretty much written by Ecma, so maybe this isn’t a surprise.)

Also, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Microsoft/Ecma can resolve any comments. Only JTC1 can resolve comments. It can only do it via a Ballot Resolution Meeting or by assigning this task to the JTC1-appointed Project Editor.

If Microsoft’s OOXML gets a yes vote from at least 2/3’s of the P members and no votes from less than 1/4 of the total voting members, does OOXML automatically become an ISO standard? Or does Microsoft/ECMA also have to resolve all of the comments that accompaniied no ballots at the Ballot Resolution Meeting in February to procure ISO standard status for OOXML?

As for the robustness of the review, I see it otherwise. The fact that OOXML has such a large number of clear defects shows the insufficiency of the Ecma review and the overall poor quality of that process. If ODF had this quantity of problems you would surely have heard Microsoft already listing them.

Thanks Ed – I don’t think he so much answers it as confirms it. DIS29500 is recieving a far more robust review than IS26300 ever did … and will benefit from it I am sure. I think the fact that OASIS went along with the BRM being cancelled is indicative that thay knew there was so much more work to be done – formulas, accessibility, interoperability support.

I guess IS26300 will get the same level of thoughtful and good faith review from IBM and supporters when it comes back to ISO for revision one day?

I understand that Ecma have confirmed that they expect there to be a BRM and will address all comments at it.
________________________________________

Um funny doesn’t look like he read your comment at all Rob. OASIS went along with a BRM cancellation because they knew there were so many issues? Then why were there no comments to resolve…..

Sometimes spinning makes one dizzy I guess….