In short, representatives of state IT organisations from Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Paraguay say:

“Whereas we do not intend to waste any more resources on lobbying our national bodies to pursue the appeals further, we feel it is important to make the following points clear:
- The bending of the rules to facilitate the fast track processing of DIS29500 remains a significant concern to us. That the ISO TMB did not deem it necessary to properly explore the substance of the appeals must, of necessity, put confidence in those institutions ability to meet our national requirements into question.
[...]
Whereas in the past it has been assumed that an ISO/IEC standard should automatically be considered for use within government, clearly this position no longer stands.”

In one post Patrick suggests that JTC1 is important because it has NB representation, not corporate representation. But in the other post he suggests that the NB views can be ignored if they are in the minority, at which point he merely dismisses them as being “IBM” views. So his view of NB representation seems to be limited to respect for the views of those he agrees with, which is hardly a principled view.

Patrick also says “The objections were heard, considered and the vast majority of us simply disagree.” The fact is that the appeals were not heard. What occurred was that ISO leadership accompanied the written appeals with a deceptive response, one which was economical with the truth. Presented with this deceptive analysis, along with the original appeals, we still saw the original appellants were joined by other NB’s, including two that had voted in favor of OOXML, to a split decision in SMB and TMB. As I reported in this post, the TMB vote was tied, and the SMB vote, after you correct for a broken ballot, was nearly so. Of course, ISO can be counted on to invent new rules in a pinch, so we saw this magic 2/3 rule in TMB they pulled out of the air, and that is what prevented the appeals from being heard.

The point of an appeals process is to ensure that the rules are followed. The rule of law should apply regardless of whether the majority prefers the outcome that came from ignoring the rules. Every NB should expect to be in the minority at some time. Do they want this to be an organization which can freely fail to follow its own rules, to allow large corporations to stuff its committees, to hold BRM’s that are merely ceremonial,to allow ad-hoc treatment of voting rights, to issue confusing and contradictory ballots and generally to turn a blind eye to every form of abuse?

The fact that the DIS 29500 received sufficient votes in the technical approval ballot means absolutely nothing with regards to the appeals. It is embarrassing that Patrick does not see that, considering he has legal training. This is just like Robert Mugage’s recent electoral victory in Zimbabwe does not justify or excuse the abuses that lead to that victory. The end does not justify the means. Ignore that point and you are on a short path that ends with a knock on the door at night, a muffled scream, a short drive, and a bullet to the head.

See http://www.durusau.net/publications/listening.pdf and http://www.durusau.net/publications/reform.pdf

Because what does it mean to vote Yes on the first question AND Yes on the second question, as Canada did. How do you tabulate that vote?

Even an Abstain vote in the first half doesn’t help you. If there’s a 2/3 major requirement for either question, you need a 2:1 ratio out of 15. But you could get 8Y, 4N and 3A from the first question, followed by 6Y, 3N and 6A in the second question. Then you have a 2/3 majority for BOTH QUESTIONS, even those their opposite questions.

The ballot should have said…

Please vote yes, no or abstain on the following:

1) Continue the Appeal from Brazil
2) Continue the Appeal from India
3) Continue the Appeal from Venezeula
4) Continue the Appeal from South Africa

That’s unambiguous. It’s not possible to contradict your own vote. You only have to answer once for each appeal.

Normally one should never attribute malice in a case where incompetence is an adequate explanation, but I can’t see how the Secretary-General of the IEC could be that staggeringly bad at his job. Katherine Harris had more ground to stand on than the IEC does here.

I think this should be read as:
“According to the ISO/IEC rules, DIS 29500 can now proceed to publication as an ISO/IEC International Standard. This is expected to take place within the next few weeks, subject to a) completion of final processing of the document, and b) subject to [the condition that] no further appeals against the decision [is made].”

This means as far as I can tell that the original 4 appealing bodies very much can appeal this rejection and the issue at stake again. And I for one very much hope they do. Even if in practice it should turn out that OOXML is dead in the water, there are nevertheless matters of principle and due process here that are critically valuable IMO to pursue.

“If there is a requirement for a 2/3 approval, the two actions (a and b) should be considered separate issues. It was a mistake to instruct the boards to vote on only one of actions.”

I don’t follow why this is so. Part A is “not to process the appeal any further” and Part B is “to process one or more of the appeals, which would require the setting up of a conciliation panel”.

Now I parse those phrases as follows. In Part B, the “, which would require …” is a no-op because that’s a consequence of the choice, not the choice itself. The difference between “the appeal” and “one or more of the appeals” seems to be irrelevant too, since both questions are being asked 4 times, once for each appeal.

Therefore it boils down to a choice between “not to process the appeal” or “to process the appeal”. I don’t understand why the acceptance threshold makes any difference to whether this is one choice or two. It seems to me like a choice between opposites – poorly worded and biased, nevertheless.

Their procedures are poorly written and fail even their most basic purpose — providing an unambiguous set of instructions for reviewing and approving standards. What have they been doing for 20 years, if their appeals process gives no mention of a 2/3 approval criterion, if their BRM process does not clearly mention which class of NB’s can vote, and if their contradiction phase does not define “contradiction”. Twenty frickin’ years — what the hell have they been doing all that time, that they have not managed in that 20 years to develop a workable procedures document?

Even though JTC1 is supposed to be the premier body for international technology standards, the organization itself is still run on technology that would have been embarrassing 20 years ago. Consider: Even today JTC1 is still debating whether it is permissible to hold a meeting by teleconference. Alexander Graham Bell would, if he had not died in 1922, be proud that JTC1 was finally making the bold leap into the 20th century. Discussion forums, mailing lists, wiki’s? Forget about it. Come back in another 20 years and maybe they’ll have something worked out.

As for transparency and accountability, JTC1 makes even Ecma look good. In fact I suspect that one reason why Microsoft is eager to transfer control of OOXML to JTC1 is that is the only place they can move it to and be less accountable and more secretive than in Ecma. For example, in Ecma, they would be required to make drafts public and solicit public comments. In JTC1, this is not required. No public input is required, or indeed even allowed.

So I cannot tell what snafu’s are caused by malice and what are caused by incompetence, but to see JTC1 is such bad shape after 20 years, with no signs of improvement, quality control or even engaged leadership, it seems to me that organizationally it is already brain dead, but, like a dead tree, stands teetering in forest for a few more years, infested by insects and other vermin, until a big enough wind comes and blows it over.

I would like to remain anonymous for this post, but I will try to contact you by other means so we can share specifics.

As a person who worked very hard to fill one of the appeals rejected on Friday, I’m appealed not only by the facts you kindly relate on you blog, but also, by the unbelievable obscurity surrounding all this process. My NB is still to receive any formal communication from ISO/IEC about the outcome of the appeals, and that’s just one example of it.

I would like to hear your opinion about a possible appeal based on JTC1 directives 11.4, and why on earth would the ISO press release state that DIS 29500 is “subject to no further appeals against the decision”.

Also, do you know what the “councils” are and who’s on it?

regards

Thomas, the ability to write the ballot question is a powerful thing, and in ISO is typical used to bias the vote. In this case the Secretaries General dictated the ballot question.

Saul, you are correct. They didn’t even get the name of the standard correct, which is one example of the overall low level of diligence given to consideration of these appeals.

Also, if the instructions are taken literally, indicating an abstention on one action means you shouldn’t vote on the other action. It seems to me that none of the SMB voters followed the instructions.

Is that title of the ballot correct? Shouldn’t it have at least used “Office Open XML”? (which would still have been inexcusably confusing)

“11.4 Appeal Against a Decision of the TMB/SMBs

An appeal against a decision of the TMB/SMB shall be submitted to the Secretaries-General with full documentation on all stages of the case.

The Secretaries-General shall refer the appeal together with their comments to the members of the Councils within one month after receipt of the appeal.

The Councils shall make their decision within three months.”

We probably know already how such an appeal will be handled by the Secretaries-general, but it will force them to show how much they are biased.

Will they dare to continue their farce ?

By the way, what are the ISO and IEC rules for ousting a Secretary-General ?