Archives for August 2007

We’ve heard a lot of coverage of events in Sweden, Mexico, Australia, the US, etc. But we should remember that there are 150 or so countries eligible to vote. Here is a first-person account of the Microsoft medicine show in Ghana, from Kwasi at Ramblings of an African Geek:

So, the Q&A section rolls around, I asked some questions and an attempt was made by the MS reps to paint me as ill-informed and obtaining all my information from blogs on the internet run by anti-Microsoft fundamentalists. Oh, and of course IBM was mentioned as the prime company lobbying everyone and providing them with groundless reasons to vote against OOXML. Then came the best tactic of the day. Dismissing my questions as ‘too academic’ and ‘concerned with the needs of other nations, not Ghana’. After I stopped being annoyed at the attempt to shut me down, I was highly amused.

From Africa News is a report “African civil society warns Microsoft“:

(FOSS) Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Ms Nnenna Nwakanma, told HANA that Nigeria like any other African country stands to gain by properly investigating the issue on the ground, stressing that Microsoft lobbyists have not been able to convince stakeholders how the OOXML document formats would benefit the public except for those who have Office 2007, which is a proprietary software .

“Only those using Office 2007 can benefit from it. If you use any Office apart from 2007, you first have to upgrade. I cannot understand why norms cannot be used unless certain proprietary changes had to be made,” she said.

On the implication of voting ‘No’ to OOXML being proposed by Microsoft to Africa, especially in relation to e-School initiative, she said, already some African countries are warming up to embrace Open Document Formats (ODF), as an alternative file format.

But back to Sweden. My, my, what a mess. I suspect the same has happened elsewhere, including the US. But no one has been so careless as to leak a memo over here. We feel left out! So, if anyone has a similar “smoking gun” letter sent by Microsoft to line up MS Partners in the US to join INCITS V1 at the last minute, and doesn’t know what to do with it, you might consider letting me know. I’ll trade an original copy of the Utica Saturday Globe of Sept 21st, 1901, the President McKinley memorial issue, with full coverage of his funeral and burial, including a still brilliant page one color portrait (over the fold) of McKinley with Lady Liberty on the side, weeping, draped in flag with shield. Suitable for framing. A true collector’s item for any McKinley fan.

(Trivia: Ever wonder why there are so many McKinley High Schools in the US? Because so many of schools were built after soon after his death.)

So what is wrong with stacking a committee? Isn’t it just an expression of our freedom to associate? An interesting perspective from the Supreme Court, in a case that no one is talking about, but everyone should know: ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INDIAN HEAD, INC., 486 U.S. 492 (1988). This appears to be the highest profile case involving stuffing a standards committee:

Petitioner…can, with full antitrust immunity, engage in concerted efforts to influence those governments through direct lobbying, publicity campaigns, and other traditional avenues of political expression. To the extent state and local governments are more difficult to persuade through these other avenues, that no doubt reflects their preference for and confidence in the nonpartisan consensus process that petitioner has undermined. Petitioner remains free to take advantage of the forum provided by the standard-setting process by presenting and vigorously arguing accurate scientific evidence before a nonpartisan private standard-setting body. And petitioner can avoid the strictures of the private standard-setting process by attempting to influence legislatures through other forums.

What petitioner may not do (without exposing itself to possible antitrust liability for direct injuries) is bias the process by, as in this case, stacking the private standard-setting body with decisionmakers sharing their economic interest in restraining competition.

(Over on Slashdot one reader says of the above, “And I don’t think normal people go around reading and quoting 20 year old anti-trust cases for fun.” You don’t know me very well, do you? I read legal analysis for fun. I have my own copy of Tribe’s “American Constitutional Law”, a facsimile edition of Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, a three volume set of the writings of Edward Coke, and Fergus Kelly’s “A Guide to Early Irish Law”. Never confuse me with normal. But never confuse me for a lawyer either. I don’t generalize well.)

In the “When Your Mom is the Beauty Pageant Judge” department comes news that the most influential “products, applications or technologies of the past 25 years”, according to a super duper scientific poll by CompTIA, is Internet Explorer. Second place is Microsoft Word. Third place is Microsoft Excel. And tied for Fourth Place is Windows 95.

Joe Wilcox over at Microsoft Watch takes a pin to the Microsoft-sponsored puff piece IDC did on OOXML called “Adoption of Document Standards.” And if the data is not rosy enough, Microosft can make it look even better by cutting off the y-axis labels to make a more impressive bar chart. “This one goes to eleven.” You could spend hours exposing the flaws in that paper, but why bother? Life is too short.

Wait… this just in. In a survey of most dumb-ass Microsoft-sponsored surveys of August, first place goes to CompTIA’s “Microsoft, Creator of Civilization, Inventor of Fire & Universal Benefactor of Mankind” and second place goes to IDC’s “4% Looks More Important in a Bar Chart if the Maximum is set to 5%.”

This one brought a smile to my face. Software Engineer job postings at Red Hat in Pune. Resumes must be submitted in ODF format.

Freecode in Norway has link to an an essay [pdf] by Sun’s XML Architect, Jon Bosak entitled “Why OOXML Is Not Ready for Prime Time”. Although I may disagree with Jon on the suitability of this single-vendor format for international standardization (His position is more along the lines of “Not yet” while mine is more like “Hell no”), I must admit he makes some excellent points.

Also, the Linux Foundations Desktop Architects have a statement just out: OOXML – vote “No, with comments“

And speaking of “No, with comments”, now that the Microsoft checks have presumably cleared, self-proclaimed “standards activist” Rick Jelliffe, is recommending that Australia vote “No, with comments.” This after a summer of speaking in favor of OOXML in India, Thailand (twice), Australia, New Zealand and who knows where else. How unfortunate for us all that his sage advice comes only after Standards Australia and most other countries have already finished their deliberations. I can only respond with the words of Lord Byron, from his “Ode to Napoleon”:

And she, proud Austria’s mournful flower,
Thy still imperial bride;
How bears her breast the torturing hour?
Still clings she to thy side ?
Must she too bend, must she too share
Thy late repentance

In the following post Rick reinterprets time, gives sophistry a bad name and takes such liberties with geometry that would make M.C. Escher blush, all in attempt to show that OOXML is really not 6,000 pages long, and it really wasn’t created in less than a year. You can read his attempt to seek a logical basis for redefining reality to fit his preconceptions here, or just consult my one-slide summary below.

(Oh, Rick. One more thing. My last name is shared by Australia’s most famous film director, Peter Weir. I manage to spell your name right. Maybe this mnemonic will help you spell mine right.)

Microsoft’s Stephen McGibbon updates us on the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM), now scheduled for February 25-29 in Geneva. He ends his otherwise informative post with a little jab:

I hear that IBM is still telling national bodies that a BRM isn’t guaranteed. I am unsure how IBM reached that conclusion but this seems to be concrete evidence to the contrary.

Well, let me help refresh Mr. McGibbon’s seemingly repressed memories.

First, scheduling a BRM does not guarantee it will be held. For example, have you heard of DIS 26926 “C++/CLI”? It was another Microsoft/Ecma Fast Track, just last year. The BRM meeting announcement went out on 25 October 2006, saying the BRM would be held 13-15 April 2007 in Oxford, England. Stephen, do you recall that BRM by any chance? Of course not, because it was canceled in February 2007 with the following message from the SC22 Secretariat:

We have been advised that the comments accompanying the Fast Track ballot for DIS 26926 are not resolvable and that holding a Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) would not be productive or result in a document that would be acceptable to the JTC 1 National Bodies. Therefore, our proposal is to not hold the BRM and to cancel the project.

So there is one example of a BRM that was scheduled and then canceled.

Want another? Sure, I can do that.

Take the case of DIS 26300 “Open Document Format.” A Ballot Resolution Meeting was scheduled for May 29 to June 1, 2006 in Seoul, Korea, concurrently with the JTC1/SC34 Plenary. But was the BRM actually held? No. It was canceled by the Plenary:

Following the advice of the JTC 1 Secretariat, JTC 1/SC 34 cancels the previously-scheduled ISO/IEC 26300 Ballot Resolution Meeting and the SC34 Secretariat will forward the revised DIS text and accompanying disposition to SC34 national bodies for a 30-day default ballot when ready.

Why? Because ODF received no Disapproval votes. Although 8 of the 23 NB submitted comments with their ballot, these were all “Approval, with Comments” votes rather rather than “Disapproval, with comments. So a BRM was not deemed necessary. Only comments that accompany Disapproval votes must be addressed at a BRM.

So there you go, two examples of BRM’s that were scheduled, but then canceled. The SC Secretariat has some discretion here. JTC1 Directives, Section 13.5 says, “In some cases the establishment of a ballot resolution group is unnecessary and the SC Secretariat can assign the task directly to the Project Editor.” The two examples given show that if a ballot passes by large margins, or fails by large margins, a BRM may not be necessary.

How about another example from the recent past, the Fast Track DIS 29361 “Information technology – Basic profile.” Their ballot closed on June 18th. Its ballot passed with 17 of 20 P-Members voting in favor of it. All Disapproval votes were accompanied by comments, as did one of the approval votes. Since there were Disapproval votes surely there must have been a BRM, right? No, that’s not how it worked. The JTC1 Secretariat decided a BRM was not necessary and the comments could be forwarded directly to the Submitter of the Fast Track for them to “review and respond”. So even having Disapproval votes does not guarantee a BRM will be held.

Does this make more sense now?

Of course, Microsoft already knows all this, and no doubt that is why they are working so hard to urge NB’s to vote “Approval, with comments” with promises that their comments will be addressed at the BRM, a BRM that might not even occur. In fact, if everyone listened to Microsoft and followed their advice then that would almost guarantee that no BRM would be held and no NB’s comments would be adopted.

The word for today is “disenfranchisement” which according to Webster’s means “to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity.” You sometimes hear it used in connection with the policy in some U.S. states where convicted felons are not allowed to vote. That is legal disenfranchisement.

There is also the less savory kind of disenfranchisement, the kind that borders on electoral fraud. For example, in the 2004 presidential election there were reports of activities like:

• In Ohio, some registered voters received anonymous phone calls telling them that they were not properly registered to vote and that if they tried to vote they will be arrested.
• In Florida, registered members of one political party received phone calls reminding them to vote on November 3rd. Too bad the election was really on November 2nd.
• In Wisconsin, fliers were handed out falsely stating “If you already voted in any election this year, you can’t vote in the Presidential Election.”

An attempt to fraudulently disenfranchise a voter is despicable wherever it occurs. In a democracy we decide by having a fair debate, and then counting votes. But misrepresenting the rules and procedures in order to prevent another party from exercising their right to vote — this is universally deplored.

I just received an email from someone in a national standards committee considering the OOXML ballot, concerning false information given to his committee which suggested the Sept. 2nd ballot deadline was not real, that they actually had 30 more days to decide. I’m not going to name names in this post, but I will say that this isn’t the first note I’ve received regarding such tactics. Some of the other ploys I’ve heard of include:

• In the 3o-day contradiction period, one NB was told that the stated deadline from ISO had been extended and that they actually had two more weeks to debate before sending in their response. If they had listened to this advice, this NB would have missed the deadline and their comments would have been disregarded.
• Another NB was told that they were not allowed to vote in the 5-month ballot because they had not participated in the contradiction period. This is totally false and has no basis in JTC1 Directives or past practice. Luckily this NB decided to check the facts for themselves.
• Several NB’s were told that JTC1 had resolved all contradiction concerns with OOXML and that these issues therefore cannot be raised again in the 5-month ballot. This is utterly false. No one at JTC1 has made such a determination.
• Several NB’s have been asked not to submit comments to JTC1 at all, but to send them directly to Ecma. (Yeah, right. Just sign your absentee ballot and give it to me. I’ll make sure it gets in the mail)
• Many NB’s are being asked to throw away their right to a conditional approval position by voting Approval on a specification that they believe is full of defects that must be fixed, even though JTC1 Directives clearly states that “Conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote.”
• Many NB’s are being persuaded to vote Approval with the promise that all of their comments will be “addressed at the BRM” without explaining that “addressing a comment” may entail little more than entering it in a Disposition of Comments Reports with the remark “No action taken”.

I’m expecting that such shenanigans are only going to increase as we go into the final week of this 5-month ballot. So I ask you all to remain vigilant. If you see anything like the above happening, then please post a comment. If you feel like you’ve been tricked into not voting, or voting for something that you didn’t really agree with, then remember that JTC1 allows an NB to change their vote up until Sept. 2nd. No vote is final until then. If you hear something that seems unusual or a departure from normal practice, then question it. And don’t take my word for it either. If you need an official answer, shoot off an email to the JTC1 Secretariat and the ISO Secretary General.

ISO works on a voting principle of one country/one vote. Don’t let confusion over proper voting procedures deprive your country of their vote.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, or almost any other blog covering the file format battle, then you have certainly come across comments from Stephane Rodriguez. He brings a unique perspective, knowing more about the legacy binary Excel formats than any sane person I know. So it a treat to have from Stephane a fuller exposition of some problems he ran into working with the Microsoft OOXML formats, in an technical article called Microsoft Office XML Formats? Defective by Design.

Enjoy!

27 August Update: Slashdot has further coverage of Stephane’s article. Some good comments and perspectives can be read there.

My mind sometimes works in weird associative ways. One thought leads to another, all connected, but only tenuously so. I was having a conversation the other day with my wife, and I was all over the place and it only struck me later that the topics were all connected by their tangential association to a ukulele. What would Freud say? But I digress…

I had a trip to the dentist on Monday. Whenever I have to go to the dentist I have images in my mind from the 1976 film Marathon Man, namely Lawrence Olivier as Dr. Szell, the elderly Nazi war criminal, torturing Dustin Hoffman with various unorthodox dental procedures. I figure that if I mentally prepare for the worst, the real dentist will be gentler in comparison. I sometimes mention this movie to the dentist, but they all deny ever having seen the movie. Very odd. I think they are hiding something. Surely this classic must be a staple of dental school film societies everywhere. That and the Tim Conway dentist skit from The Carol Burnett Show. What else is there in terms of great moments in dental cinema?

In any case, a story is told, perhaps apocryphal, that Hoffman prepared rigorously for his role in this movie by depriving himself of sleep for two days, so his character would appear worn and haggard. Olivier, seeing Hoffman that morning, and hearing of his co-star’s preparation, is said to have quipped, “Dear boy, next time why not try acting?”

I’m reminded of this line when I witness Microsoft’s machinations in JTC1, as they attempt to get OOXML approved. They are mounting an enormous offensive and expending great sums of money to convince ISO members that this rubbish heap of a format is acceptable as an ISO standard. Someone needs to ask, “Dear boy, next time why not try engineering?” Instead trying to force this ill considered mess through JTC1 (causing a great deal of collateral damage in the process), why not take your great base of engineering talent and produce a good standard and have that sail through JTC1 with thanks and praise?

We’re also seeing a shell game at play with the technical comments. Many of the technical flaws were uncovered and discussed on this blog back last summer and fall, before OOXML was even completed by Ecma. Microsoft didn’t fix them then. In the 30-day contradiction period, in February 2007, many NB’s raised these same issues. Microsoft didn’t fix them then, saying that they should be raised in the 5-month ballot. Now these same comments are being raised for the third time, in the 5-month ballot, and Microsoft is suggesting that they can be fixed at the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) in February 2008. At the BRM I predict that Microsoft will suggest that the issues should be fixed during maintenance of the standard. That would fit their plans well since they have already petitioned JTC1 to have the maintenance of OOXML handed over to Ecma TC45, closing the circle. Microsoft will never need to fix any problems in OOXML at this rate.

Another curious ploy is the way Microsoft is trying to convince JTC1 members that “Yes” means “No”, that if they have serious issues with OOXML a NB should still vote Approval. Let’s look into what the voting rules really are.

First a simple question to warm up. If you see a tunnel with a sign that says “exit” do you think that you can enter it as well? If you answer “No,” then congratulations, you are smarter than Microsoft thinks you are. Microsoft is essentially arguing around the globe that unless the tunnel has a sign that says “do not enter”, then you are welcome to enter the tunnel regardless of the “exit” sign. They are arguing that a NB can do anything they want unless the JTC1 Directives explicitly forbid it.

The counter argument is actually quite simple. You just need to consult Section 9.8 of the JTC1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0, which I’ve extracted below:

As it says, an Approval vote is approval of the technical content as presented. It is not approval pending the addressing of comments, or contingent on future work being performed. It is not approval of the importance of the proposal or approval of the market importance of the technology or approval of the company or organization making the proposal. It is explicitly approval of the technical content as presented. Although comments may be appended, the approval is clearly not contingent on anything at all happening to those comments, since the language clearly says the approval of the DIS as presented. Nowhere in the Directives does it suggest that NB’s may substitute their own criteria or procedures for evaluating a Fast Track DIS. The criterion is clearly stated, Approval of the technical content of the DIS as presented. In fact JTC1 Directives, Section 1.2 says “These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.” So any NB that substitutes their own evaluation criteria for the language of section 9.8 is violating the Directives.

Now, for a Disapproval vote, the Directives say that disapproval is made for specifically stated technical reasons, accompanied with proposals that would make the DIS acceptable, and that if these changes are made, the NB has the opportunity then to change their vote to Approval. Note that it is giving a clear ordering. The NB first votes Disapproval, listing the reasons why along with their proposals to fix the problem, then if the changes are accepted, the NB has the opportunity to change their vote to Approval.

This mechanism is called out again a few lines later when it speaks of “conditional approval” and that it should be registered as a Disapproval vote.

Note that under JTC1 Directives, neither Microsoft nor Ecma has the power to accept an NB proposal. They do not own DIS 29500. They are not NB’s. Ecma’s ownership of the proposal ended when the 5-month ballot began. The only entity that can formally address NB technical comments is the assembled NB’s at the Ballot Resolution Meeting. Certainly Ecma can offer an opinion, but it is no longer theirs to accept or deny changes at this point. If Microsoft is promising resolutions to NB’s, then it is promising something which is not theirs to give. (Before you buy a used car from someone, it may be wise to first verify that they actually own it.)

In summary, when Microsoft says that an NB should vote Approval, with comments, and that they promise that all comments will be addressed, this is defective analysis for several reasons:

1. The Directives clearly state that Approval indicates that the NB accepts the technical content as presented. Certainly, if the NB has only small editorial comments but otherwise accepts the technical content, then an Approval vote is entirely appropriate. But if technical content is not acceptable as presented, then they must vote Disapproval or else they ignore the plainly stated language of the Directives.
2. Voting Approval, with comments with a private promise from Microsoft that your comments will be addressed at the BRM anyways — this contradicts the clear statement that “conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote.”
3. Neither Microsoft nor Ecma is competent to provide any assurance as to what the BRM will or will not do. They do not run the BRM and they do not control what comments are addressed. The BRM is an NB meeting.

The tragedy of this is that for so many NB’s, with talented technical committees, the NB process for OOXML has failed to be a technical evaluation, but instead has quickly become a political game, where committees are stuffed, where governments are pressured to change their votes, where billionaires call in favors, where competitors are blocked from participation, where voting rules are ignored or replaced at whim, etc. All we can do is stand by and watch as Microsoft takes over JTC1. The cost to Microsoft will be great, but so much greater is the cost to JTC1. What will it mean for JTC1’s future to be known as a body that does not follow its own rules, does not evaluate proposals on technical merits, but has procedures so weak and poorly written that it allows itself to be taken over and dominated by a single company? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?