It’s been over a year and a half I wrote about the unfortunate events that occurred in the last days of the OpenXML’s BRM, when the Brazilian delegation was prevented by the BRM convenor (Alex Brown) brought out a major proposal related to the binary documents (legacy) mapping for OpenXML.In short, Microsoft claimed throughout the whole OpenXML process at ISO, that the specification was needed because it had been based on the existing binary documents, and so it allows a faithful translation of existing documents to the new format, guaranteeing the “rescue” of information.
During the second day of the BRM, there was a discussion about splitting the specification into multiple parts, and the discussion and responsibility to prepare a proposal on this subject was assigned to a group of delegations (U.S. and Brazil included). As we left Brazil with a list of things that we should treat, and one of those was the legacy documents mapping, we believe it would be a good opportunity to present this proposal and therefore started a conversation with the U.S. delegation (and with some others too) to see what they thought about our proposal. Everyone I talked to, considered it very important and so we started working to polish it, to be presented together with the U.S. delegation, because they considered that our proposal was complementary to their one (new division of the specification - “Multi-Part” proposal).
The main reasons that supported our proposal was that mapping document would allow the development of applications for the faithful conversion of legacy documents by any software developer. That approach and the proposal we’ve developed had the support of several countries that had access to the proposal on the fourth day of the BRM (we posted a presentation with the details proposed into the document repository that was used during the BRM, which was constantly visited by all delegates). We spent almost the whole night of the third day, working on this proposal.
With the proposal file transferred to the document repository, and therefore accessible to all BRM delegates, Deivi (Brazilian Head of Delegation - HoD) took the first coffee break of the fourth day to go talk to Alex Brown and ask him the opportunity to present our proposal just to ensure that it would be presented. Alex Brown said we should talk to the U.S., because he understood that our proposal was related with their proposal, and after a conversation with two U.S. delegates (HoD included), we agreed that they would present their proposal and at the end they would invite us to present our proposal, which was complementary.
The dynamics of the meeting was made so that rounds of NB’s proposals (we didn’t even completed 3 rounds), was interspersed with rounds of follow-up of the work that was being done in parallel (as the division of the specification).
During the fourth day, I talked with delegates from various countries who had read our proposal and wanted to express their support for it. It would be a very interesting debate and important for the meeting and to ensure we’d even have the opportunity to present, I personally went to talk with Alex Brown on Thursday afternoon about our proposal. He said that he knew what we were wanting to present, he had understood the importance of the issue and that we would have our chance. The day ended and we wasn’t authorized to speak, but we felt comfortable with the fact that in the next day (last day of BRM), the U.S. delegation would finally present their proposal and then they would invite us to complement it with our own.
The last day of the BRM begun with a huge backlog of things to be finalized, and it was a morning of hard work. Looking the progress of work during that morning, we got very worried, but we also knew that U.S. delegation would present their proposal soon after lunch. When the meeting was adjourned for lunch, happened a fact that explains to me everything about OpenXML.
A member of the Canada delegation, who is also an ECMA member, came to the place where me and Deivi were in the meeting room, saying that he wanted to talk to us. He was extremely nervous and uncomfortable, and began his talk by asking us to please, don’t present the binary mapping proposal there, seeing that ECMA didn’t had such mapping document and they hadn’t studied the issue there. He told us that Microsoft was responsible for the statement of “legacy compatibility” and if we wanted to have access to the document, he could help us to talk with Microsoft. He finished his talk asking us not to do such a request to the ECMA in public, insisting we should talk with Microsoft. While we had this conversation, I noticed that at the back of the meeting room, several Microsoft employees and ECMA members were watching us with attention and when they saw that I was paying attention in this detail, they pretended to be looking at other parts of the room (it was a ridiculous scene).
Deivi took the opportunity to ask about a lot of other things to him, as the supposed “guarantee” of access to the legacy and none of the answers was even remotely acceptable. To end the conversation, I told to the Canadian delegate, that yes, we would accept his request, but he would need to do one thing: create a time machine, and use it to come back in time and go to Brazil, to the time the discussion started in our National Body (ABNT) and speak there, to the NB’s members that the legacy mapping had never been examined and therefore the supposed “compatibility with the legacy” was just a marketing gimmick. That would save us more than a year’s work, because without the “compatibility with legacy” OOXML is nothing more than a total overlap of ODF (and thus our votes would be decided very quickly). If he wasn’t able to fulfill this request, we were sorry, but the proposal would be presented.
At the end of the conversation, we were invited to lunch with Jean Paoli (Microsoft), invitation made by our delegation member who is also an Microsoft employee (Gebara). The restaurant was a mess, and our food never arrived. This forced us to cancel the order and return (with an empty stomach) to the final part of the meeting. With all the rush, we didn’t had the chance to properly discuss the absurd ECMA proposal. I was nervous and hungry.
When we got back to the meeting room, the U.S. delegation was already starting their presentation and then, we prepare to make our presentation. Peter Lord was presenting in behalf of the U.S. delegation, and at the end of his presentation he invited the Brazilian delegation to present our proposal, explaining that it was complementary to theirs. I was standing up with my computer at hand when Alex Brown unauthorized me, saying that our proposal was related with another issue and we would need to continue to the meeting, following the agenda. Several countries had protested, because they wanted to hear our proposal, but they were simply ignored. Alex Brown opened the voting on U.S. proposal, and the proposal was approved. Following the agenda would mean that we would, in theory, still have an opportunity to present our proposal.
During the last coffee break of the BRM, I talked to many delegates who were really concerned about ensuring our opportunity to speak, and they also showed their intention to support our proposal.
On every interval between the discussions during the final part of the meeting, some delegation expressed that they wanted to hear the Brazilian proposal (and they were always supported by other delegations). When we were very near the end of the meeting, Deivi was authorized to speak and insisted once more on our request, and this time Alex Brown tells us that unfortunately there were no time left. This statement was followed by an intense round of protests from various countries (one of the HoD said that he was working for over decades in standardization and has never seen such nonsense in the ISO). The outrage grew so until a serious (and hard) discussion between Alex Brown and the head of the Canadian delegation (which by far didn’t imagine the proposal that his colleague had made on behalf of ECMA to us).
The end result is that we couldn’t present our proposal, and the whole world missed the opportunity to hear from the mouth of ECMA delegates:
“We didn’t study the compatibility of OpenXML and Microsoft’s legacy binary format.”
Anyone out there have any doubt about the outcome of the vote, if this discussion had taken place?
How far the ECMA delegate would go, if we’d considered the possibility to “negotiate” with him?
Why Alex Brown, even knowing the importance of the issue, shamelessly manipulated the meeting to prevent the proposal presentation by Brazil ?
I think many of these questions will stay unanswered, but I’d really like to understand what motivated the Alex Brown to change in such an outrageous way the course (and outcome) of OpenXML in ISO.
Since this meeting ended in Geneva, I haven’t spent even one day of my life without wondering: What would have happened if we had presented our proposal, and what motivated Alex Brown to manipulate in such a way that meeting?
Now that everyone knows the “backstage” of Alex Brown’s decision, preventing Brazil to present the binary mapping proposal of the last BRM day, a few comments are pertinent.
Reviewing everything that happened during the BRM, the manipulation of the meeting progress by Alex Brown is getting more and more evident, and it’s also clear that he was responsible for enforcing the hidden agenda of the meeting. A quick search on his blog, his “contributions” to OpenXML in ISO and his relationship with ECMA (and ECMA members), will show the close relationship he has with OpenXML (and this is the minimum I can write about it).
An example of such manipulation of the agenda is clear and obvious: The ECMA delegation (as far as I remember ECMA isn’t a ISO National Body) had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the BRM to make a speeches about “legacy compatibility”. In summary, the Brazilian delegation (which is an ISO National Body), couldn’t speak for lack of time, but the ECMA had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the meeting to make their speech. This stupidity didn’t happened on the other days of the BRM because on the second day of the BRM, during a meeting between Alex Brown and the HoDs, Deivi (head of the Brazilian delegation) filed a protest against these ECMA’s speeches.
Talking about ECMA’s speeches, one of those was given by a representative of the British Library, and I mention this fact because I have the impression that the triad British Library, Alex Brown and Microsoft may turn on some lights for my U.K. friends ( and I would love to know what they have to say about it).
“I have no doubt that the BRM was a big circus, manipulated by ECMA / Microsoft to achieve their goals and the master of ceremonies of the circus ring is named Alex Brown.”
If any other delegate who was in that meeting room remember of additional details to supplement what I’ve wrote here, please leave it in the comments.
We need to clarify this story, and as promised earlier, seeing that I hadn’t any response asking organizations, I’ll now ask directly to the persons. Alex Brown is the first (and found it interesting that he accused me on his blog of being “partial”… what charge do you think I could or should do about him?).
UPDATE: Please join us on the excellent discussion at the comments (special guest: Alex Brown).
October 29th, 2009 - 6:56 pm
The timestamp for the Brazilian multipart “presentation” uploaded to the BRM web site is the morning of 29 Feb 2008 (the final day). The whole meeting could access it, but as you may remember delegates were asking for at least 24 hours to consider documents that came up for voting.
The Brazilian so-called “proposal” is a sketchy 5-page Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. However, what NBs needed to be producing at that point was (in Tim Bray’s words) “crisp fully-edited deltas” — and they need to have submitted them to the BRM web site in enough time so that other NBs could at least had a chance to read them overnight.
A vague proposal to be raised on Friday afternoon that Ecma should “add binary mappings” was quite clearly *totally* unrealistic. How could Ecma produce that over the tea break? How could NBs review what would be thousands of dense technicalities in the same time? It was totally within my discretion and *obviously* the correct decision to nip this in the bud. Brazil had already raised (and had actioned) their first raised point about de-vendorising the specification of web browsers in 29500 (kudos to them for that!).
I am confident I took the right decision on this, and given the same circumstances would repeat it. However, if you and Brazil feel slighted in any way I must offer my condolences. Consider, however that if we had spent time pontificating about this unworkable proposal, a number of other (useful) resolutions would have been abandoned through lack of time.
Brazil’s appeal on these matter was dismissed, as I recall. I respectfully suggest it is time to move on. There is plenty of useful work to be done, not least on ODF!
As for all your ridiculous conspiracy theories, I strongly suggest you read this:
http://is.gd/4Hy2X
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 7:20 pm
[…] http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html a few seconds ago from xmpp […]
October 29th, 2009 - 7:28 pm
Good to know that you still have the document, and you’re right, we’ve sent an updated proposal to the secretariat with the following explanation:
“Dear Mrs. Kimura,
We made some essential editorial changes to our proposal.
Please upload this new version to the SC34 website.
Thanks in advance,
Brazilian BRM Delegation”
It was only an editorial update and the first version was sent on within the allowed time frame.
Funny to read about “editing instructions”, because the only thing needed (and proposed on the “sketchy” PowerPoint file) was the creation of a new annex with the Binary Mappings.
Oh… I forget that ECMA never studied that mapping, so they didn’t have that document at that time, and it is good to read your confirmation about it, because all that time, the whole world was thinking that ECMA had, at least, studied the mappings (and if they did so, they should have a “sketchy” mapping document … shame on you again !)
Brazil appeals wasn’t dismissed, but ignored (which is very different).
Regarding ODF, I’m very proud with the things I’m doing to ODF in the past years. The only issue, is that I have to spend a lot of my priceless time working and dealing with OpenXML from time to time. If you can pretend that the elephant isn’t in the room, I can’t.
I’m aware about the referenced document, but I can’t find my name on it. I also can easily identify there several other names that have histories full of mysteries as your own (off course mixed with names of very good people, but this the way you guys always work).
“Truth happens”…
Jomar
October 29th, 2009 - 7:45 pm
[…] http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html a few seconds ago from Gwibber […]
October 29th, 2009 - 7:48 pm
Of course they couldn’t because it doesn’t exist even though some fools still live by the religious belief that Microsoft OOXML maps a binary format without a map.
Clearly you show you knew this, and know it still.
Yes, that problem was recurrent in many meetings, but it appears you and your cronies live under s trong religious belief that they’ll magically be fixed by ignoring them.
It is only the “correct” decision if the aim is approval of Microsoft’s format, instead of a standardized format.
Rui Seabra, member of the portuguese TC which was first formed by mostly Microsoft cronies, which limited the number of chairs so Microsoft could have many seats and avoid more dissenting voices inside the room, and which ONLY EVER EXISTED TO VOTE FOR MICROSOFT OOXML. Nothing else was ever done again, in the meanwhile.
October 29th, 2009 - 7:52 pm
[…] http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html a few seconds ago from Gwibber […]
October 29th, 2009 - 7:54 pm
Jomar
The creation of a new annex with binary mappings is clearly several thousand pages worth of technical work; how could they have been produced and reviewed in 3 hours on that Friday afternoon?
If Brazil is serious about this topic it could propose new work in SC 34. A year has passed, and so far nothing has been heard, even though your standards colleagues have been most welcome participants in the business of SC 34/WG 4.
So - would Brazil be willing to provide resources to help with such work? OOXML would surely benefit from more helping hands!!
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 8:03 pm
@Rui Miguel
Ecma clearly did *not* produce a mapping; so NBs had to vote on a text without one. It puzzles me why you seem to think this is some kind of revelation … it’s obvious isn’t it?
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 8:04 pm
Alex,
Please, be don’t play that way with us. I’ve spend several nights over the last days reading the OOXML DCORs, and you that the binary mapping document could be a “+1 issue to be fixed” on the specification. The fact is that ECMA NEVER STUDIED THE MAPPING !
If you don’t know that yet, Brazil has already made a choice for ODF. We’ve adopted ODF as a National Standard, we have laws approved and under analysis all over the country and our current estimative is that we already have more than 3 million ODF users only in government.
OpenXML is almost like a joke to us here, and a joke that still taking our time (and spending our money) !
If you guys did what you did with our eyes very close, imagine what you would do if we leave ?
Jomar
October 29th, 2009 - 8:10 pm
Alex,
I have another good question to you: If you knew at that time that ECMA didn’t had studied the mappings, why did you accepted to take a major part in a process that was completely based on a lie ?
Jomar
October 29th, 2009 - 8:14 pm
@Jomar
ODF …that’s great - Brazil is a sovereign Nation and can decide for itself how to use document formats. I use - and work on - both formats, myself.
However, nearly all *your* efforts seem to be focussed on OOXML, which kind of puzzles me.
On a matter of detail, the variant of ODF Brazil has adopted as a National Standard is ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (ODF 1.0) right?
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 8:24 pm
@Jomar
It was not up to me to judge the format — in fact I rather enjoyed *not* having to think about the quality of the format thank you very much. My job was running the meeting.
The BRM decided on some text to describe the scope of the standard, and then voted to approve it. The wording is quite loose:
“the *goal* of ISO/IEC 29500 is to be *capable of* faithfully representing the pre-
existing corpus of word-processing documents” [my emphasis]
So it does not claim there is a mapping, merely that that was a “goal”. In my personal opinion, this is perhaps a bit to vague for a scope statement, but heh - all standards have faults, right?!
Anyway, in the final analysis the countries voting seemed to have thought this was sufficient, which was why there was a sufficient super-majority of votes for OOXML to be approved as an IS.
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 8:41 pm
@Alex,
Brazil adopted the ISO version, but the discussion here is if we will still relying on ISO standards on IT. The OpenXML proved to us all that ISO has a broken process and that SC34 was easily hijacked, so we (me included) don’t really believe that we can trust “that much” on ISO anymore. We’re also talking about the adoption of standards from their source as W3C and OASIS, because those institutions have the least amount of transparency needed. Rest assured that are several other countries doing the same, and there are some very productive discussions going on.
Thank you for the clarification, but unfortunately Microsoft has used the “100% percent compatible” with the legacy as the main reason for OpenXML Fast Track. They also used the fact that ISO accepted the fast track, as if it had proved that the “100% compatible” was true.
I still insist that if the “binary mapping issue” was discussed at the BRM, the final voting would be different, but we know that you couldn’t allow that “tragic ending”.
Based on that, and on the other stuff you wrote here, it seems that as the BRM convenor you elected which proposals would or wouldn’t be discussed (in the case of Brazilian one, you chose to block it). Is that the right way for a convenor to work ? Your job there wouldn’t be just as a facilitator of the whole discussion, instead of a filter of what could or could not be discussed ?
Jomar
October 29th, 2009 - 8:58 pm
@Jomar
> Thank you for the clarification, but unfortunately Microsoft has
> used the “100% percent compatible” with the legacy as the main
> reason for OpenXML Fast Track.
Yeah, but who listened to Microsoft? In my view Nations needed to come to an independent assessment of the merits of this project *without* listening to those pesky vendors.
You’re just wrong about the story around the Brazilian proposal and - I might say - rather over-dramatising the situation and what you think your role was in it.
The stated task of the BRM was to produce an improved quality text; you seem to think it was for grandstanding so as to bring about some kind of decisive change of vote. I tell you again: your “proposal” was simply not fit for purpose and I was *right* not to give it time.
We may just have to agree to disagree on that — but I find it fairly pathetic that you can’t accept that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t somehow involved in a conspiracy.
- Alex.
October 29th, 2009 - 9:16 pm
@Alex
> Yeah, but who listened to Microsoft? In my view Nations needed to
> come to an independent assessment of the merits of this
> project *without* listening to those pesky vendors.
Are we living in the same world ? We’re talking about the same BRM ? You didn’t read Rui’s comment right above ?
Microsoft stuffed (or tried to do so) every single committee that had voting rights on this process. The also build committees on countries where they even exist, just to be able to cast the vote !
They also stuffed the BRM with their own employees and business partners, the same way they’re now doing with SC34 !
In fact, we have a huge Microsoft delegation at the BRM, with members pretending do be Americans, Brazilians, English and so on… We even had a citizen from a one country as the representative (and Head of Delegation) of other one, so please, don’t make me write more here about the dirty stuff I know, ok ?
I’m not wrong about the history of our proposal, you are (and was) wrong about it.
> The stated task of the BRM was to produce an improved quality text;
Produced an improved quality text based on more than 3.000 technical issues related to more than 6.000 pages of specification in just 5 days ? Are you kidding me that you really believed on that joke ?
Yes, we can agree that we disagree on a lot of things, but we must agree on a single one: The BRM was an error, and the final voting should be the “NO” that OpenXML receive on the first time.
Regarding the conspiracy, be cool: Truth happens !
Jomar
October 29th, 2009 - 9:38 pm
Alex’s error is that he shut down the Brazilian delegation without any discussion. In doing so he alienated an entire delegation and NB. It would have been easier to let them bring this to the floor and let it be voted on. By not allowing the proposal to come up at all, he missed the knowledge that several other delegations considered this to be a critical issue as well, and that some of them, the the US delegation, had a productive way forward which would have likely led to consensus on this question. The US delegation had a concrete proposal ready to go, if only Alex had not been so eager using his gavel. The US statement, which we reviewed among our delegation but were not able to present at the BRM because Alex shut down the discussion, was:
====================================
We would like to raise US-0041, dealing with mappings to the the legacy binary formats.
Our delegation has been instructed to raise this question as a critical issue for our National Body. This is consistent with our other positions, which have supported the need for strong interoperability with these legacy binary formats from Microsoft Office.
We observe that the draft scope clause includes the statement, “The goal of this standard is to represent faithfully the existing corpus of word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations that have been produced by Microsoft Office applications (Microsoft Office 97 and later).” However, this goal cannot be consistently practiced by implementors without a mapping from features of the legacy binary format into features of the proposed International Standard.
We note that DIS 29500 bears the obvious marks of its legacy roots.
Our simple request is to provide a reference to such a mapping. Without such a mapping conversions will be inconsistent and interoperability will suffer. Given the same binary document, Microsoft Office, Apple iWork, OpenOffice.org, etc., will all produce different OOXML documents. How is this “faithfully representing” existing documents? What is needed is statement canonical mapping.
Note that the initiation of a open source project to develop a convertor between the binary formats and OOXML is not sufficient. What is required is a canonical mapping.
Now obviously, we cannot produce such a mapping in this BRM as editor’s instructions. But the US-0041 did not request adding mapping to the DIS. We are requesting adding an informative reference to a mapping, one which, for example, could be in the form of a document posted to the Ecma web site. If our motion is approved by this meeting, Ecma’s responsibility would be to locate or prepare such a mapping, and to add a reference to this mapping within the 30 days allowed for final edits to the DIS. This could, for example, consist of tables of legacy document records and the corresponding section references in DIS 29500 to which the legacy records most pertain.
==============
So again, the error was Alex thinking that it was impossible to address the legacy format issue the BRM. By refusing to listen to the NB delegations, and limiting himself to his own narrow prejudices, he failed in his role as BRM Convenor. No one asks for an omniscient and infallible Convenor. That would not be reasonable. But we should have had one that was more considerate of the will of the NBs present in Geneva.
October 29th, 2009 - 10:15 pm
@Alex
If “crisp fully-edited deltas” was the goal of the BRM, it was a major failure because a 6000+ pages spec plus 1500+ pages comments can’t lead to only 12 pages of BRM resolutions. “Crisp fully-edited deltas” in this context would be something like 3000 pages of spec patches - to be produced in 5 days or BRM. Impossible. Not to mention the parts that were completely missing in the original spec.
Maybe because dense “crisp fully-edited deltas” were the focus, the BRM outcome was just a big fuzzy confusion. If instead “sketchy 5-page presentations” with the straight-to-the-point ideas (that don’t need more than 5 pages to be delivered) were the focus of the discussions, the BRM would be less confusing, more practical, with a better outcome.
Lets assume @Jomar is completely wrong with his “ridiculous conspiracy theories”. Even so, you were leading the way there and was supposed to be clever enough on choosing what was relevant to be discussed in only 5 days by hundreds of people (more people=more confusion). Well, it seems to me you knew the importance of the “sketchy 5-page presentation”, how it could easily explain to everybody the problems of the whole OOXML process etc, but you made a choice to not expose it.
So we ended up with two options to understand what happened:
1. @Jomar is right about his conspiracy theories.
2. You, @Alex Brown, was/are completely incapable of leading such a strategic meeting, were not able to do the correct decisions and let happen things like 30 minutes per day of idiotic speeches instead of setting the priorities towards the important discussions.
I hope @Jomar is right, otherwise the OOXML BRM is simply a bad stamp for your biography, résumé and career.
> The creation of a new annex with binary mappings is clearly several thousand pages
> worth of technical work; how could they have been produced and reviewed in 3 hours
> on that Friday afternoon?
Yeah, so you made a political decision to hide the simple fact that there was no mapping document - something that could ruin the whole OOXML process immediately.
> If Brazil is serious about this topic it could propose new work in SC 34. A year has
> passed, and so far nothing has been heard, even though your standards colleagues
> have been most welcome participants in the business of SC 34/WG 4.
Thats not correct. Brazil’s NB sent a letter to ISO a few weeks after the BRM expressing how disappointed everybody was about the BRM outcome and how things happened. Guess what happened? No answer, no sound, no voice, complete silence from ISO.
You started favoring the big “crisp fully-edited deltas” against the right “sketchy 5-page presentations” just because the first one looks bigger. Well, seems you prefer only the big ones. You know what I mean…
October 29th, 2009 - 11:07 pm
@ Alex Brown
> October 29th, 2009 - 7:54 pm
> Jomar
>
> The creation of a new annex with binary mappings is clearly several
> thousand pages worth of technical work; how could they
> have been produced and reviewed in 3 hours on that Friday afternoon?
Indeed. The only possible __sane__ way out of this would be to halt the process and start over, without any “fast track” or other similar outrages.
Actually, just halting the process would be _the_ thing to do (without any “starting over”), as this whole ooxml novel is simply, plainly, utterly _wrong_ under any possible assessment. The only rational exception to perceive the whole process, from inception to the current “amendments” in progress as anything but wrong, would be getting a big, fat check from Microsoft. Your own statement above is just one of the angles proving this wrongness, and yet you can state it as it is and read it upside down.
As Ruy said above:
> it appears you and your cronies live under strong
> religious belief that [the problems] will magically be fixed by ignoring them.
Joao
October 30th, 2009 - 1:09 am
We know that there have been Gurus that collected believers, people that would defend the Guru’s list of outrageous lies and bizarre nonsense with tooth and nail.
When I first heard praise for Microsoft Basic I knew that Bill Gates was such a Guru.
And now we see that the esteemed Alex Brown is a believer.
Amen.
October 30th, 2009 - 3:54 am
@Rob @Jomar @Avi
Well, you guys have your opinions (nice to see IBM out in force here); they’ve all been repeated ad nauseam over the last 20 months. I’d be more impressed if I heard some constructive proposals for process reform rather than this harping on about the past.
Rob - the running order for addressing things was based around previously-worked on items which were being revisited. I know the USA is kind of used to running things but it was not in your gift to give Brazil the floor … My judgement was that delegates were impatient to get on with items which *could* be resolved in time.
Interesting BTW that the idea was to add an “informative reference” — so it would have made no substantive difference to the spec then. However, if Brazil knew this document did not exist what exactly was it they wanted to reference?
- Alex.
October 30th, 2009 - 4:46 am
@Alex Brown:
I don’t think it’s some kind of revelation, but it’s very obvious. So obvious, in fact, that it’s something we always knew but couldn’t prove: how could it represent the “existing body of documents” (very common argument of defense) if there isn’t any mapping between both formats?
By magic?
Microsoft OOXML was and is a sham, and you are an accomplice.
You guys have disgraced any honour ISO had.
October 30th, 2009 - 4:48 am
And phooey to you if you consider it a personal attack. It’s like a thief caught in the act calling it a “personal attack” when people yell “stop him, he’s a thief”.
October 30th, 2009 - 7:04 am
[…] OOXML, removing criticisms from the article in Wikipedia. There is no surprise there. Now we find this story from Brazil about Brown’s role in violating any rule of reason in order to push through OOXML. Why Alex […]
October 30th, 2009 - 8:27 am
[…] http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html a few seconds ago from Gwibber […]
October 30th, 2009 - 11:09 am
@Alex
> However, if Brazil knew this document did not exist what
> exactly was it they wanted to reference?
At the time we wrote the proposal, we believe that the document exist (btw, pretty obvious thought). We just found that the whole thing was a farce after the “conversation” with your friend from ECMA. After that, according to his words, we believed that Microsoft SHALL have the document, but according to everything you wrote here, it seems that even Microsoft have such document, so the farce is bigger than we thought.
Also based on the things you wrote here, it also seems that you know at that time that both Microsoft and ECMA didn’t had the document… and I’m wondering how could you know about it, because we always thought that you were the convenor because of your neutrality… It seems that your relationship with Microsoft and ECMA was too close at that time, and it seems that you guys had a lot of good “conversations” too during the week.
The “conversation” with Brazilian delegates was cut by us, but it seems that the “conversation” with you was productive…
Jomar
October 30th, 2009 - 11:40 am
[…] que yo podría, o debería, hacer a el?).UPDATE: Hay un debate muy rico en los comentários del post en inglés (con la participación especial de Alex […]
October 30th, 2009 - 11:52 am
[…] Um debate muito interessante está sendo feito nos comentários do post em inglês (com participação especial do Alex […]
October 30th, 2009 - 2:56 pm
Alex Brown said:
“I am confident I took the right decision on this,”
You were not entitled to take *this* kind of decisions. The NB delegates went to the BRM to take *this* decisions.
October 30th, 2009 - 9:00 pm
@Jomar,
Thank you.
*Everyone* knows OOXML is a proprietary standard masquerading as something legitimate. The world is voting against it. I feel like I should apologise because Alex Brown is from my home country and was clearly not as impartial a representative of ISO as should be expected.
Nevertheless, OOXML is becoming increasingly irrelevant and the damage caused by this travesty fortunately appears to be falling on the wrongdoers; who all know who they are…
October 30th, 2009 - 9:52 pm
Thanks Jomar for bringing out this debate, and specially for keeping having stomach to deal with this kind of crappy people around…
October 30th, 2009 - 10:00 pm
@The Open Sourcerer ,
You don’t need to apologize, because I know that Alex Brown is the exception, not the rule over there.
As I said before: Truth happens !
October 31st, 2009 - 6:24 pm
@Alex Brown
I’m sorry, I’m a bit lost.
Correct me please: from the ferocious comments here I understand that “the *goal* of ISO/IEC 29500 is to represent existing(at that time) Office documents” but that there is no way to do it. Am I correct ?
Side question: is it a good idea to adopt as a standard a document that has the *goal* of being capable of representing something (and, as far as I understand, is not capable right now) ? Shouldn’t we wait to have a document that *is* capable of representing that thing ?
October 31st, 2009 - 9:24 pm
Every single piece of data which comes out, and most notably *every word out of his mouth* — often provable lies, often self-contradictory — shows Alex Brown up as a paid shill who had only one interest: serving the orders of Microsoft, whether or not it subverted the ISO or ECMA process, whether or not it was ethical, whether or not anyone complained.
I’m startled Alex Brown hasn’t shut up and gotten himself a lawyer by now. But perhaps Microsoft is still paying him, and providing the lawyers?
October 31st, 2009 - 9:28 pm
Alex Brown:
“I’d be more impressed if I heard some constructive proposals for process reform ”
(1) Don’t allow delegates to vote who haven’t been constructively involved with the entire process — no late vote-stacking, such as Microsoft did.
(2) Require a neutral convenor, and make a procedure for removing the convenor if he, like Alex Brown, fails to abide by the process and violates ISO rules. The (honest) collection of delegates should be able to remove him, *and* two protests from national delegations should automatically remove him. This alone would have removed Alex Brown, eliminating many of the process problems.
All very simple and very constructive, Mr. Brown.
October 31st, 2009 - 10:03 pm
I’m freshly disgusted by these recent revelations. Alex Brown should be ashamed - if not for being a Microsoft lackey, for totally mismanaging the process.
They say “do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence” - but I don’t think incompetence can explain the terrible abuse of process we’ve seen with OOXML and ISO. I’m reminded of a quote from HHGTTG … “This bypass has _got_ to be built, and it is _going_ to be built!” … Like that with OOXML … it’s _got_ to become a standard, and so it is _going_ to become a standard … ready or not, like it or not.
November 1st, 2009 - 1:35 am
I have seen a number of important and, in their own way, famous names in the comments, above. I will make it plain that I am not important or famous. I’m just a nobody that has to use the tools with which I’m provided, and who occasionally has opinions on things. So, this is my opinion.
Alex Brown - you are like an overloaded and off balanced washing machine in a spin cycle. All you’re doing is going >whompwhompwhompwhomp<. It isn’t just “insiders” that have caught you out. Even outsiders can see that what happened in the BRM was outrageous and beyond belief.
You asked for something definitive to rectify the issue. That’s already been done, by the little guys as well as by countries (ref: Brazil). 1.) ISO is being ignored as a standards body. 2.) Microsoft’s Office suite is being ignored as a viable alternative by governments, corporations, and individuals in favor of truely open file formats.
As I said, it’s my opinion. Opinion based on various sources, and from the opinions of many highly intelligent people, some of whom are important and, in their own way, famous. But the end result is that it is my opinion. I can live with it.
(signed)
Craig A. Eddy
November 1st, 2009 - 5:58 am
@Alex
Add another note of disgust over this sorry affair. I already knew the OOXML BRM was a farce, and strongly suspected that you played a major part in that farce. This bit pretty much confirms my suspicions. Pretty much anything genuinely constructive that might have come out of the BRM was, to use your phrasing, nipped in the bud–due largely (but not completely) to your mishandling of the process.
The entire spectacle is memorable not for the resulting (ir)relevance of OOXML, but rather for the misconduct that saw the process pushed to its sordid conclusion.
DISCLOSURE: I do not work for IBM, nor do I have any connections with IBM that I am aware of. I work for Tektronix Communications. You’re getting called out not because IBM is “out in force,” but rather because your performance was just that bad.
November 1st, 2009 - 8:41 am
@Alex Brown
Sir, just because something is repeated “ad nauseum”, it doesn’t make it any less true in the repetition.
@The rest of you
I am a humble uneducated member of the public, it is people like me and millions of others like me who will be obliged in the future to make use of, and work with, the standards that you produce. Because of the continual repetition of the “shenanigans” that went on with the various standards bodies involved with this whole “OOXML” (an acronym designed deliberately to confuse by the way, do you honestly think the general public came down with the last shower!) ODF saga. I believe that there now exists a requirement for a high level investigation into the workings of the various international standards bodies, preferably an investigation with the power to apply legal sanction commensurate with it’s findings.
Unfortunately I’m afraid I’m probably being rather naive here because it appears to that the guilty parties in this whole sorry affair are powerful enough to be able thwart and hobble any such right minded investigation into what has gone on. Sad but true, however I remain happy to be proved incorrect.
The end result unfortunately, of the whole sorry OOXML tale is that it has been incontrovertably shown that something as fundamental and mundane as a “standard” (and by describing it thus I have no wish to denegrate the hard work that I know goes into producing such things) can be subject to sharp, not to say corrupt business practices during it’s formulation and definition by those interested parties who perceive a vested interest in so doing, this is wrong! If I was a politician I’d stand accused of jerrymandering or similar crime and probably be arrested. As a result of the irresponsible behaviour of various individuals and organisations the myth of impartiality of international standards organisations has now been exploded and I for one have been disgusted at the revelations.
Get it sorted!
Paul Will (end user)
November 1st, 2009 - 11:13 am
@ Alex,
I hear the following confessions:
1 Ecma had not prepared the documents to produce a mapping for legacy formats to OOXML
2 Microsoft does not have these documents either. This means this mapping was NOT considered relevant for the standard. .
3 The whole “legacy documents” was a lie, and you just admitted you knew and hid it from the delegations
4 You conveyed a BRM that was anyhow unable to solve the questions in 5 days. And both you and Ecma knew that (was that even the reason to chose only 5 days?)
5 You are still unwilling to even acknowledge ANY problem with the BRM or procedure.
The BRM ended with many delegates airing extreme dissatisfaction. The problems they predicted have come all true: The edited document was late, incomplete, and incorrect (just like OOXML itself). MS, nor anybody else, implements the standard. The standard is currently even changed to undo BRM decisions.
Btw, unlike you, ISO has implicitly acknowledged DIS29500 as a disaster. They have changed all the rules the NBs were complaining about. There is no better admission that Ecma and MS have gamed the system until it broke than a wholesale change to prevent it from happening again.
Winter
November 1st, 2009 - 12:21 pm
@Guys
Gracious! What a lot of content-free ranting. It’s almost like those good old days of ‘08!
Anyway, I’m now confused - I thought the non-existence of this mythical mapping document was central to Jomar’s “revelations” on this blog (in his blog post http://is.gd/4K7NH he said Ecma had told him they did not have the mapping). I’m just taking him at his word on this.
Whatever — there was (obviously) no such document included in the ballot material so its existence is irrelevant to the result: National bodies were voting on DIS 29500, not documents which may or may not exist in Redmond.
Personally, I suspect this information does exist somewhere in MS, though not necessarily in a form suitable for publication. Since the MS Office binaries translate to OOXML logic dictates this information must at least be embodied in the MS Office Source code. If countries are serious about making this kind of mapping into a standard, they can submit New Work Item Proposals in the normal way. So far, silence.
On the evidence before us, I do not believe the mapping *was* such a hot topic anyway. NBs had a chance to raise around 40-50 topics during the BRM when they commanded of the floor. Mapping was not raised; other topics were.
There is no reason why I should have allowed Brazil to elbow other countries out of the way and jump the queue to raise their half-baked proposal that Friday afternoon. It surprises me that some here seem to think the good-faith detailed technical work of (say) Japan, Switzerland and Israel should have been discarded to allow this kind of out-of-process intervention.
The BRM was a crazy time, but its limited role in the whole affair was merely to modify the text of the standard. This it did (as well as it could in 5 days), and the *real* decision on OOXML took place in the 30 days that followed… As you know in the end, 75 % of the JTC 1 participating member votes cast positive and 14 % of the total of national member body votes were cast negative. OOXML was approved by strong International consensus. Jomar and his colleagues, in helping to improve the text (the browser reference reform was Brazil’s work) played a positive part in this and helped to get OOXML into an acceptable state for approval. Congratulations.
I am very pleased to see JTC 1 now reforming the accelerated standardization processes, which I have been consistently critical of since my first blog entry of 2006. But there is still much work to be done.
Finally, I am sure some of you commenters must have been reading Jesper’s blog at http://is.gd/4K7K7 - and, thanks to your fresh crop of insults I am now comfortably in the lead in our competetion. I can almost taste that sweet frosty beer already …
Cheers,
- Alex.
November 1st, 2009 - 12:41 pm
@Alex,
Please stop crying that countries had their chance to present things at the BRM and no one raised the mapping issue.
Brazil would do that, but seeing that YOU oriented us to discuss this issue with the US delegation, to be part of their “new division” proposal, we thought that YOU would have the smallest portion of honesty and allow us to present it, as YOU oriented us to do.
We were prepared to present the issue in one of our opportunities, but at that moment, the discussion with the US delegation was running… so YOU messed with the whole thing.
Good to see your friends putting their faces out… hope to see more of them very soon (or I’ll give them a good reason to speak).
Jomar
November 1st, 2009 - 1:28 pm
@Jomar
Aha - I think I see your misunderstanding!
I personally suggested you discussed mapping with the USA because I knew it was a topic they were interested in and (maybe) planning to raise in their next round (and as Rob Weir’s text above shows, they did indeed have some text ready to go in case they were called).
We never got to the USA second-round, but ran out of time (at “S” was it?).
You are totally mistaken if you thought I was going to buck the process to give the USA an extra round’s worth of floor-time.
The USA was out-of-order to try and queue-jump to get their second-round question in ahead-of-time when they attempted to launch a new discussion at the end of the division-work voting. Other countries had finished work waiting to be processed. I was running the meeting, not the USA — and it was my duty to protect the interests of *all* the participants.
I’m not “crying” that nobody raised the mapping issue; just pointing out that it is a fact. You claim everyone wanted to discuss it; the *evidence* says: you’re wrong.
Cheers,
- Alex.
November 1st, 2009 - 1:42 pm
@Alex,
Thanks for helping me with the wording: “out-of-order” is the best expression to summarize your work there.
I know what I discussed with the US delegation, so stop guessing !
> You claim everyone wanted to discuss it; the *evidence* says: you’re wrong.
Ask your friends from ITTF to make the recorded audio of that meeting available, and people will know the support that we had there. BTW, if you know Spanish, take a look at the Spanish version of this post. There is an Ecuador’s delegate there talking about what they asked and what you allowed.
Please ask ISO to divulge the audio recordings… I really would love to let the world listen what we listened that week.
Jomar
November 1st, 2009 - 2:10 pm
@Jomar
Of course there was never going to be 100% delight with the BRM, now was there!
As was made clear, if NBs were unsatisified with the BRM result they could vote to disapprove the DIS. However, as you know the vote swung decisively in the other direction. OOXML was approved by a super-majority of the voting Nations.
Sorry, I have no influence with ITTF. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BRM audio has been destroyed. Or maybe commercialised as a cure for insomnia!
November 1st, 2009 - 3:09 pm
@Alex,
I bet that most of the people would behave more than as “on a middle of a nightmare” than as sleepy as you suggest (ok, a “Rob Zombie” kind of nightmare).
> OOXML was approved by a super-majority of the voting Nations.
A compliment to that: “…, a super-majority that didn’t know that ‘legacy compatibility’ was only market fluff, but shame on Microsoft, who used nations that way…”
> I wouldn’t be surprised if the BRM audio has been destroyed.
This is too far obvious right now. You and your friends knows how to exploit the shadows… But how long can you live there ?
Truth happens !
Jomar
November 1st, 2009 - 3:17 pm
Alex -
as a computer professional, I find your admission there is no mapping and that you knew it in advance, and did nothing to bring it to the attention of the BRM at best dis-ingenious, if not an outright disgrace and sham. As the stated goal of ISO/IEC 29500 is to “be *capable of* faithfully representing the pre-existing corpus of word-processing documents” and as that is impossible without a mapping, fundamentally you and MS/ECMA lied to the NBs. You can tranform from one format to another ONLY with some kind of mapping. If no such mapping exists, ISO/IEC 29500 was presented under false pretenses.
Based on that, the correct decision when you realized there was no mapping was NOT to cut off discussion, it was to shut the process down by explaining to the BRM (actually it should have been explained at the start of the process) that the proposed standard did NOT do what it was purported to do, was a sham, and should not be approved. That your recommendation was an immediate and unanimous NO on the standard, ending all effort.
ISO 29500 is a sham, was a sham and was known to be a sham by the parties proposing it. The followon work being done (see Rob Weir’s blog - if what he says is true, this is in violation of at least the spirit, if not the rules of ISO / IEC - no substantive changes (i.e. corrections besides mis-spellings and related) should be done without amendments brought via a vote of all NBs).
The alternative explanation is you are incompetent, and should not have been involved in this AT ALL. Either way, the best course of action I see going forward is for you to:
1. Admit the sham, as well as the documented shenanigans to ram it through.
2. Publicly call for the withdrawal of ISO 29500 as it was presented as a falsehood, and run through a stacked process for purposes of a single company.
3. Publicly call for ECMA to lose their rights to propose ANY ISO standard, not just fast track. They have been shown to be a sham organization, as they apparently approved a standard that was known to be false and unimplementable for the stated goal.
4. Publicly call for a complete audit by an independent organization fo the ISO/IEC 29500 procedure - to be done in the open, with the results published without review by ISO IEC or ECMA (no getting to edit the findings).
6. Publically release all minutes/discussions/etc ISO had regarding ISO/IEC 29500. Standards should be made in the open.
7. Publicly resign from any involvement with ISO, ECMA, or any standards organizations with a public apology for the embarrassment you and MS have caused to the standards processes. You no longer have any credibility, having admitted here in this blog to basically supporting and ramrodding a sham process for a sham standard.
In addition, I would recommend the fast track process be modified so that only standards that a) have at least three conforming implementations (as tested by compatibility tests), and b) are already adopted by at least 3 NBs as national standard, can be proposed for fast track. In addition, the study time for 1st round of comments is 1 month/500 pages of documents, the BRM is a minimum of 1 day opening, 1 day/25 comments, and 2 days closing (note that’s a minimum). Also, the final vote will not take place until after the final draft is published and reviewed by the NBs, with a minimum of 1 month/500 pages to review.
November 1st, 2009 - 3:48 pm
@jjs
The non-existence of the document is something Jomar has claimed on his blogs following the BRM; I’m just accepting what he said. In my view if the text wasn’t part of the process it might as well not have existed anyway …
You clearly don’t understand the role of a convenor; it is not to pass judgement - one way or the other - on the substance of the text in hand, but to faciliate the consensus forming process around it in an orderly fashion.
And, as the voting shows, NBs were happy enough with OOXML as it was, without any kind of mapping document.
The easiest way to reform the PAS and Fast Track processes would be to scrap them altogether (or to revert to the stricter form of PAS found in ISO).
- Alex.
November 1st, 2009 - 4:05 pm
@Alex,
> The non-existence of the document is something
> Jomar has claimed on his blogs following the BRM;
> I’m just accepting what he said
Please read what you wrote here and think about what you did there !
Truth happens !
Jomar
November 1st, 2009 - 5:22 pm
I find it fascinating that the spin machine hasn’t lost it’s bearings yet.
Mr. Brown, you are suffering from a pronounced circular reasoning problem. You claim that the reason that the lack of documentation of mapping wasn’t addressed is because there was no documentation of mapping to address. Say, HUH? Come on. Even I, a mere end-user, can see the illogic of that.
Couple that with the fact that the BRM was stuffed with those that looked to Microsoft, either as employees or through contracts with Microsoft, and the end result is a BRM that was never in control by anyone but Microsoft.
And then I looked at all the NBs that joined up just to vote on OOXML, and found THEM to be stuffed with Microsoft. Even the legend of Chicago’s worst voting “eccentricities” can’t compare to this. Even the current “voting” in the middle east doesn’t compare to the blatant misuse of procedure that this demonstrates.
And then you have the gall to try to spin evidence that others have supplied in numerous places as being in error. Shame.
A man, by the name of Terry Pratchett (well, SIR Terry, now, for those in the UK) wrote a book called “Truth”. In it is a quote that perhaps you should consider:
“The Truth Shall Make You Fret”
Craig A. Eddy
November 1st, 2009 - 8:49 pm
[…] http://homembit.com/2009/10/openxml-what-i-havent-told-yet-about-the-brm.html a few seconds ago from Gwibber […]
November 1st, 2009 - 10:22 pm
Yep, more furious tap-dancing by Mr Alex Brown. Choose your side - incompetent or malicious - which is it going to be?
November 2nd, 2009 - 12:44 am
Mr Brown,
Your one talisman against our forces of evil appears to be “Well the NBs voted for it in the end”. Yet we know, we KNOW that the choices placed before them for voting approval or disapproval pivoted not on whether the resulting document was a good and proper standard, but whether the BRM process had improved it in some way. In other words, if the process resulted in any improvement at all to the standard, NBs were instructed to vote ‘yes’.
Given the immense amount of good-faith work that the NBs did during the BRM, it seems somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the standard wasn’t improved at all. Ergo, one would expect that most NBs, following the guidelines you laid down for them, and using the altered voting criteria you provided, would vote ‘yes’ even if they were completely dissatisfied with OOXML as a standard at all.
The vote was never on whether 29500 should be accepted as a standard but whether the changes made during the BRM should be approved and whether the resulting standard was better after the BRM than previously.
Your chiding waving of this magical good luck charm will only ward you against the superstitious and the ignorant. We are neither.
November 2nd, 2009 - 4:59 am
> Ecma clearly did *not* produce a mapping; so NBs had to vote on a text
> without one. It puzzles me why you seem to think this is some kind of
The non-existence of the document is something Jomar has claimed on his blogs following the BRM; I’m just accepting what he said. In my view if the text wasn’t part of the process it might as well not have existed anyway …
So, did you know it in advance (see 1st quote), or are you just accepting it (2nd quote) - your tune changes every time someone tries to pin you down.
Also, regarding the role of the convenor -
>It was totally within my discretion and *obviously* the correct decision to nip this in the bud.
> You clearly don’t understand the role of a convenor; it is not to pass judgement - one way or the other - on the substance of the text in hand, but to faciliate the consensus forming process around it in an orderly fashion.
So, was your role to “facilitate” and not pass judgement (which you did by denying Brazil the opportunity to raise the issue), or were you choosing what topics to bring up?
You seem to want everything both ways, anyone is at fault but you, the procedures are what you claim them to be, and change every time someone raises an issue. Unfortunately, you are now arguing diametrically opposed positions, and claiming you held to both of them simultaneously. You wonder why your credibility is shot?
The one thing I’ve heard you say I agree with is that PAS and Fast Track should be killed.
November 2nd, 2009 - 5:55 am
Hospitaler,
“In other words, if the process resulted in any improvement at all to the standard, NBs were instructed to vote ‘yes’. ”
Please refresh my memory: by whom were the NBs instructed to vote “yes”? As far as I recall it, the vote was a sovereign decision by e.g. the Danish National Body to vote any way it chose to.
November 2nd, 2009 - 9:29 am
Jesper
The delegates were not instructed what their decision should be, but rather what the question was they were voting on. And I do recall quite clearly that this question was posed quite explicitly by the chair - are the proposed edits an improvement to the pre-BRM text : yes or no.
And this did place the South African delegation in a difficult position. Many of the proposed changes were of course an improvement. That we voted No was in the end a “sovereign decision” informed in part by (i) the knowledge that whatever the question, the outcome of the vote would indeed by misinterpreted as endorsement of DIS29500 and an endorsement of the BRM process (ii) the fact that the number of issues actually discussed represented far too small a proportion of the actual issues which had been raised over the preceding 12 months or so. We were of course also one of the few delegations which did not have our obligatory Microsoft-IBM employees members.
A lot of this is water under the bridge now and I for one don’t intend spending too much time raking over it all again. In retrospect I think the meeting was a bit of a show put on largely so that ISO/IEC and ITTF could emerge somehow with some face intact at having followed some kind of process. That should have been clear enough long before the BRM. In South Africa we never believed it should have got as far as that. I think Alex was given this impossible task of keeping ISO’s good name intact and that he made some mistakes - I’m surprised he doesn’t think so.
But in the end the outcome was decided by “national bodies” in the 30 days following - to vote on a text which was not yet available. And unfortunately not enough of those national bodies were able to resist the awesome driven self interest of a multinational company with money to spend and tentacles that reached into committee rooms around the world.
Bob.
November 2nd, 2009 - 3:12 pm
I think that asking for a mapping between the binary formats and new “XML” formats was the only meaningful thing to ask proper at the ISO meetings. The reason why is that it is the exact definition of OOXML : the paper defines OOXML as a file format based on a mapping from a legacy, whose mapping is actually entirely absent from the many thousand pages of XML crap.
That someone such as Brown and other assholes defend the position that the meetings were not the good place for making sure the mapping would be provided is disingenuous at best.
Fuclking assholes. In 1942 Brown would we shoot for collaboration with the ennemy.
November 2nd, 2009 - 3:41 pm
Bob
> I think Alex was given this impossible task of keeping ISO’s good
> name intact and that he made some mistakes - I’m surprised he
> doesn’t think so.
Whatever makes you say that? I personally apologised to number of delegates/delegations whom I did not deal with as well as I should. I just don’t believe Jomar has a valid point here.
- Alex.
November 3rd, 2009 - 5:07 am
Hi Bob,
“And I do recall quite clearly that this question was posed quite explicitly by the chair - are the proposed edits an improvement to the pre-BRM text : yes or no.”
Yes, the vote for accepting the individual changes at the BRM. I do not remember Alex Brown instructing us how to vote in the final vote utlimo March 2008.
“That we voted No was in the end a “sovereign decision” informed in part by (i) the knowledge that whatever the question, the outcome of the vote would indeed by misinterpreted as endorsement of DIS29500 and an endorsement of the BRM process (ii) the fact that the number of issues actually discussed represented far too small a proportion of the actual issues which had been raised over the preceding 12 months or so.”
This enlightens the various different mandates that each delegation went to Geneva with. As for the Danish delegation, our mandate was based on the 168 comments for improvement we had submitted to ISO/IEC in Fall 2007. During the previous months we had - through negotiation with project editor - 168 responses that we were pleased with. So our mandate was essentially:
“Go to Geneva and try to have as many of them as possible accepted. If a better solution is presented than the one we have, go with that”.
In the end, we ended up going home with 168 accepted solutions to our comments.
At no point at the BRM did we in the Danish delegation actually discuss the final vote a month later. The delegation consisted of technical experts and the decision to vote yes or no was not up to us. That was the perogative of Danish Standards - pending recommendations of the Danish SC34 mirror committee.
“We were of course also one of the few delegations which did not have our obligatory Microsoft-IBM employees members.”
Well, that I cannot say about the Danish Delegation :o)
“And unfortunately not enough of those national bodies were able to resist the awesome driven self interest of a multinational company with money to spend and tentacles that reached into committee rooms around the world.”
I think you are quite out of line suggesting that the only reason national bodies would vote “yes” to OOXML was being somehow bribed by Microsoft.
/Jesper
November 3rd, 2009 - 10:24 pm
Alex Brown said:
“As you know in the end, 75 % of the JTC 1 participating member votes cast positive […] OOXML was approved by strong International consensus”
I disagree.
This 75% is misleading:
There were 41 P participating members in this process ( the rest were “observers” [ == NB easily subverted by political-no-technical reasons ] ).
The “big players” here were the P members.
Of this 41 P members:
17 abstained or voted negative
24 voted affirmative
Then: 41% of the P members weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard”
Yes, forty one percent.
Of this 24 “approvers”, there were eight (8) countries that rushed an escalation to P membership some days before the initial OOXML ballot. After that they voted always with an inconditional *yes* to every ECMA(Microsoft) proposition.
The 17 countries that abstained were mostly influenced by a political ( non technical ) decision. The more illustrative example was Malaysia:
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/the-minister-of.html
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/malaysian-indus.html
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/malaysian-techn.html
The same happened with France, who annexed the following paragraph to his vote: “we don’t approve OOXML , we propose OOXML to be submitted as a Technical Specification … ).
I never saw any “strong international consensus” in all this OOXML standardization thing, but all the contrary.
Dario
November 4th, 2009 - 3:14 am
Darlo,
“Then: 41% of the P members weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard””
You are manipulating the truth by suggesting, that an “abstain”-vote is a negative vote.
The way we do it in Denmark is that we vote yes/no on the subjects at ballot that we have a qualified opinion of. The rest we abstain to (we did the same thing in Geneva). So by Denmark abstaining on (I think) 5 or 10 ballots this Fall, you can in no way argue that Denmark dissaproves of these subjects/specifications. We just don’t have any experts on the committee with the relevant competencies to decide a vote.
November 4th, 2009 - 7:28 am
Jesper,
> You are manipulating the truth by suggesting, that an “abstain”-vote is a negative vote.
No he does not.
What Dario writes is
“”"Then: 41% of the P members weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard” “”" -
Therefore, the one I see trying to “manipulate the truth” by suggesting people said things they didn’t is not Dario.
Also the number of abstainers seens of very litte importance for me next to the fact, well remembered by Dario, that “eight (8) countries that rushed an escalation to P membership some days before the initial OOXML ballot” - and you don’t seen to be so eager to contest that, since that is well documented. However it is easy to divert the discussion to a less disturbing statement.
Jesper, on the other hand: do you have anywhere online the list of 168 recomendations that you say you have actually discussed and got aproved or somehow accepted in this BRM process? I find this number alone quite amazing myself. Ah, yes .. they where not quite discussed and approved - they where factored in all the chanegs that would be in the rewritten specification that should be ready in 30 days from the BRM, and where not presented but months later, and was voted “ad referendum”, or am I wrong about it?
joao
November 4th, 2009 - 7:37 am
@jjs
> So, did you know it in advance (see 1st quote), or are you just accepting it
> (2nd quote) - your tune changes every time someone tries to pin you down.
Err, no. Let’s try again shall we?
I wrote Ecma had not obviously not *produced* a mapping document (see primary meaning of produce: “to offer to view or notice” http://is.gd/4MLLv )
Jomar is further claiming they have never actually had one. Seems plausible to me.
Actually, I found the mapping question quite interesting - and as the record shows it was I who made this contribution to the UK’s own comments http://is.gd/4MM0a
Who knows: if I had been on the floor rather than chairing the meeting, maybe I’d have raised this topic myself …
As it is, of the 40-50 topics raised by delegations, this one didn’t come up. And it has not been raised since in maintenance. I can only conclude that NBs don’t reckon it’s so important.
> So, was your role to “facilitate” and not pass judgement (which you did by denying Brazil
> the opportunity to raise the issue)
Brazil weren’t allowed to present because (a) they were trying to queue-jump and (b) they did not have a proposal that could be processed at that stage of the meeting. NBs were allowed to present proposals in alphabetical order. If this had really been such a hot topic for Brazil they could have raised it during a previous round, no?
@Hospitaler
> In other words, if the process resulted in any improvement at all to the standard,
> NBs were instructed to vote ‘yes’.
Totally false. In fact as I made clear ( http://is.gd/4MMsK ) “[n]o constraints are placed upon the criteria NBs may use for deciding their voting position”.
November 4th, 2009 - 8:09 am
Hi Joao,
“Therefore, the one I see trying to “manipulate the truth” by suggesting people said things they didn’t is not Dario.”
Well, since Dario tries to use the abstain-votes to somehow “subtract” from the 75% approval rate, he is bending the truth. There can be al sorts of reasons for why a NB would abstain - I have simply explained the Danish position.
About the 8 excalated O-members, I was not trying to deny this. But as with the abstain votes, there can be al sorts of reasons for why a NB wanted to move to P-level. It is not a God-given fact that they were bribed by Microsoft. That being said, I think it would be good if there was some sort of period after excalation where a NB could not vote.
“Jesper, on the other hand: do you have anywhere online the list of 168 recomendations that you say you have actually discussed and got aproved or somehow accepted in this BRM process?”
You can find our list here: http://www.ds.dk/da-DK/ydelser/Standardisering/S-udvalg/S-445/Documents/Skabelon_for_comments_OOXML.pdf . Our work going through the 168 responses from project editor in Fall/Winter 2007 is documented in our meeting minutes in the section “Arbejdsgruppe-notater:” on http://www.ds.dk/da-DK/ydelser/Standardisering/S-udvalg/S-445/Sider/default.aspx and subsequent PDF-files.
We were happy with the final responses from project editor, so we were quite glad that they were all accepted at the BRM. We have subsequently made a run-through of the items on the list an have so far found two discrepancies each of which have been submitted to WG4 as a Defect report.
“that should be ready in 30 days from the BRM”
If you by this mean that the corrections should have been incorporated in the text within 30 days, I believe you are wrong in you interpretation of JTC1 directives. The 30-day report is for the “meeting report” (or similar words) of the BRM - not the incorporation of the changes.
November 4th, 2009 - 8:45 am
[…] the OOXML BRM convenor, who was exposed, by no means for the first time [1, 2, 3, 4]. There are some interesting new comments being posted in Silva’s blog where Microsoft partner Jesper Lund Stocholm defends the OOXML […]
November 4th, 2009 - 10:41 am
@Jesper
“You are manipulating the truth by suggesting, that an “abstain”-vote is a negative vote.”
Please re-read my comment. I said:
“Then: 41% of the P members weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard””
I didn’t say that 41% of the P members disapproved OOXML.
I said, well , what i said:
“41% of the P members weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard” ” ( this is the meaning of an ISO “yes” vote ).
So, again, i don’t see here any “_strong_ international consensus” ( emphasis mine ) as Alex Brown said.
November 4th, 2009 - 11:23 am
Hi Dario,
“So, again, i don’t see here any “_strong_ international consensus” ( emphasis mine ) as Alex Brown said.”
So how do you not look at a 75% af “strong consensus”?
The only way that this would not be so, is if somehow the abstaining votes were subtracted from the final score. I am simply saying that it doesn’t make any sense to look at it this way. The words you use “weren’t able to say” clearly implies that they were asked “do you think it is good?” and responded “no”. But that that conclusion is faulty. They just might have simply answered “we don’t know”.
I am not saying that no NBs chose to abstain because they didn’t want to touch DIS29500 if their lives depending on it. Maybe some actually did. All I am saying is that it is a mistake to consider *all* abstaining votes to have done so.
I certainly look at a 75% approval as strong consensus and if I remember correctly, the approve ratio in Europe was 100%.
Btw, the phrasing “weren’t able to say “OOXML (OpenXML, DIS 29500) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard” is a classic “Rob Weir’esque” way of chosing words, so you are clearly learning from the best.
:o)
November 4th, 2009 - 12:42 pm
@Jesper:
A couple of days ago, you wrote on Twetter that the discussion (and my blog) were “stupidity”, but now I see you here helping your friend Alex… If you consider this “stupidity” and now you’re here, may I conclude that you consider yourself a stupid ? Why we should read your comments, if you proclaimed yourself stupid ?
@Alex:
I’ll explain again, and if you don’t understand I may draw too (your work at the BRM already convinced me that you may have some problems to understand things): We didn’t presented the mapping issue on one of our “opportunities” because you’ve oriented us to discuss it and present with the U.S. delegation on Wednesday. The rest of history you know better than us.
We didn’t tried to queue-jump, we simply followed the orientation of the meeting’s convenor, and at the end we discovered that the meeting had been coordinated by someone else, and the “convenor” just played as a puppet there.
About the “quality” of our proposal, I assure that it was no better than the general quality of the specification, and on the same level of other proposals presented there. Several delegates had access to our proposal and talked with us to show their support, but again, I understand that you have some difficulty to understand things.
Stop trying to explain your mistakes using the same invalid arguments. In Brazil we compare your attitude as a lipstick mark on someone’s underwear: No “solid” explanation can be given to that and an explanation can only be accepted if the other part REALLY wants to believe in anything.
November 4th, 2009 - 1:50 pm
@Jomar
And *if* we had got around to the USA again, then they would - I think - have raised it. By trying to force your item into the multi-part discussion (a *different* topic) you were - yes - trying to jump the queue, and potentially sidelining other NBs’ work in the process. I was right to return the floor to countries awaiting their proper turn in the queue.
The fact you are so liberal with your personal insults tells its own story about the sufficiency of your allegations.
- Alex.
November 4th, 2009 - 3:03 pm
@Alex
The insults started with your actions during the BRM, so please, don’t try to put “label” on people. If you’re talking about Jasper insults, please look at this tweeter timeline.
All this mess would be very well solved if transparency was a value to ISO and to people like you, but it seems that “closed doors” and hidden agendas describes with more efficiency your way to work.
I really would like to be here stating “Thanks Alex Brown, you really did an excellent job on the BRM”, but unfortunately you didn’t behave that way.
I hate wars, but I hate injustice even more.
November 4th, 2009 - 3:18 pm
@Jomar
*Sigh* more of the same ranting …
You are entitled to your opinion, of course — but I can assure you it is pure conspiracism [1].
[1] “Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm” http://is.gd/4N98c
- Alex.
November 4th, 2009 - 4:07 pm
@Alex,
Fell free to thing what you want. The readers of my blog know that I’ve wrote about things that sounded like conspiracy in the past and the time demonstrated that I was right. Time will tell again.
Truth happens !
November 4th, 2009 - 6:08 pm
Hi Jomar,
“A couple of days ago, you wrote on Twetter that the discussion (and my blog) were “stupidity”
actually, I did not write that neither you nor your blog was “stupid”. I was referring to this discussion on your blog, which I do think is rather silly.
In general, I do not think people are “stupid” (with a couple of obvious exceptions, of course - not you included, btw) but I think that sometimes people spend too much time discussing stupid things.
“If you consider this “stupidity” and now you’re here,”
one should always try to bring light to those living in darkness :o)
” may I conclude that you consider yourself a stupid ? Why we should read your comments, if you proclaimed yourself stupid ?”
I think this duscussion puts you up right next to Boycottboy and Pajama-girrl. Is this really all you have to say - after everything I wrote and all the explaining I did?
/Jesper
November 4th, 2009 - 6:17 pm
@Jesper
> one should always try to bring light to those living in darkness :o)
Finally something that we agree, but probably we still disagreeing on “darkness”.
> I think this duscussion puts you up right next to Boycottboy and Pajama-girrl.
> Is this really all you have to say - after everything I wrote and all the explaining I did?
Good to see your respect to other folks. Unfortunately your explanations and argumentations may be very well accepted by the observers that didn’t really lived the situations detailed here. For us who lived the history, your explanations are nothing more than the same null arguments used by Microsoft, and btw, it’s impressive to see how you use the same arguments on everywhere…
IMHO, it’s better to be a Boycottboy boy than a puppet, but we need to live with our choices.
November 4th, 2009 - 6:41 pm
Hi Jomar,
“your explanations are nothing more than the same null arguments used by Microsoft, and btw, it’s impressive to see how you use the same arguments on everywhere…”
Actually, I rarely see Microsoft speak of the events during the BRM … so my arguments can’t really be “same null arguments used by Microsoft”, can they?
“IMHO, it’s better to be a Boycottboy boy than a puppet, but we need to live with our choices.”
Yeah well, whatever makes you sleep at night, dear :o)
November 4th, 2009 - 6:46 pm
@Jesper
> Actually, I rarely see Microsoft speak of the events during the BRM … so my
> arguments can’t really be “same null arguments used by Microsoft”, can they?
You probably need to travel more Jesper, and also talk with people that had asked “explanations” about the BRM to Microsoft… BTW, I’m really considering the idea of a book about it, seeing the large amount of those histories I’ve collected during the past year all over the world.
> Yeah well, whatever makes you sleep at night, dear :o)
I sleep well, but “dear” is impressive =)
November 4th, 2009 - 7:03 pm
@Jesper and @Alex
Now I finally understood why both of you are ranting here, and it’s quite impressive (and funny) your competition, so I’ll give 1 point to each, ok ?
Alex looks like Austin Powers (sorry Alex, but I’ll never forget the “tea-break”), but he behaved like Dr. Evil, so he could be “Microsoft’s Dr. Evil” (1 point to Alex).
Jesper is behaving here as Alex’s security guy, so you’re “Microsoft’s Mini-Me”
(1 point to Jesper)
Now you can’t say that I’m not fair.
November 5th, 2009 - 7:26 am
@jesper:
> I certainly look at a 75% approval as strong consensus
Funny thing that you at once insist in skip over the serious bits, detians yourself in talking silly stuff about the points that are indeed silly, and then call youself ths discussion silly.
I understand that English is not your native language - I don’t even know if Danish has Latin roots - but please, take a look at the meaning of the word “consensus”, before claiming that 75% (which is _not_ an accurate number either) could mean “consensus”. Then read a little more, and learn that “strong consensus” is itself a semantically incorrect statement.
You didn’t even used it incorrectly once, you insist on your error. I wonder how much more such more simple incorrect statements, willfull or not, due to the desire to get OOXML running anyay possible, could have slipped by in any text you presented ISO on this issue.
(And the same is valid for Alex, of course, though he did not re-stated this error specifficaly)
November 5th, 2009 - 9:20 am
Hi Jomar,
You know, if I was standing next to Alex, I am pretty sure noone would consider me “Mini-me”
It is nice that you are fair to “grant” each of us a point, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am losing to him miserably.
Joao,
Point taken. Feel free to exchange the word “consensus” with “majority”.
/Jesper
November 6th, 2009 - 12:36 am
@jesper @alex
Excuse me for the poor english and technicall ignorance but …
Inst a standard supposed to be independent, neutral and promotive of good practice ??
From a user (which i am mostly) point of view, the fact that informations so important as this missing from the discussion table (floor, chair whatever you call it) doesn it ruin the goal of approving a standard ??
How can you claim “consensus” or “majority” when you helped to “miss inform” the participants ??
In conclusion, if you do care about ISO, all of you intervenients should step back, go back to the drawing board an think if this is what you whant for your kids. How can i live with something that will afect my child future beeing taken care like this ?? Wake up people !!!
Worst than making a mistake is not admiting it, nobody would rant on you if you just tried to be sory and amend what whas wrong.
@jomar
I know that knowing that your wright doesnt solve the problem, but let that it get you a litle confort at night knowing that you did what you had to. It wont last forever and the “fall” is just arounf the corner for this kind of things to pass in front of everyones eyes without beeing seen. Keep up the good work
David
November 6th, 2009 - 2:46 pm
I just saw a reference to this article in a Brazilian blog and couldn’t help but comment. However, because of transmission problems, my comment hasn’t posted yet. When it’s published it will be here:
http://colunistas.ig.com.br/luisnassif/2009/11/06/a-luta-pelo-padrao-ooxml/
And this was my comment:
*******
“Why Alex Brown, even knowing the importance of the issue, shamelessly manipulated the meeting to prevent the proposal presentation by Brazil ?”
Technological evangelism. One source for “OOXML” (this is a non-computer blog and chances are very few people even know what it is) is wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
An item whose neutrality is in dispute as noted at the top of the page. At least this got through: “Microsoft was accused of co-opting the standardization process by leaning on countries to ensure that it got enough votes at the ISO for Office Open XML to pass”.
The post mentions the Brazilian proposal but doesn’t specify it. There were epic wars about standardizing BASIC at the start of the 80’s, a language that was, by the way, abandoned by computer manufacturers much before it was standardized. It was (then) impossible to explain to those cults that there was no way to stick to only one BASIC in all computers.
Which brings me to an obvious conclusion: whatever OOXML means, it will be summarily abandoned BY COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS, and it will be abandoned solely because of its obsolescence. Whatever it is.
The way to supplant sects and cults is by massive technological superiority. As none of the proposals evidences any superiority, technological or logical, it’s just a matter of (little) time.
Under no circumstance I think Bill Gates is “to blame”, as a matter of fact. It’s happened before. Cycle of rubber, gold, coffee, computer languages… etc. Everything authoritarian, everything leaking money by the tons, until someone showed up with goods and… nothing to do with what had happened til then. The crash is inevitable. I have studied it a number of times.
Stick to your guns, Foo.
*******
What that is supposed to mean is: if the Brazilian/American proposal is good, then go directly to computer programmers and bypass the powers that be. The structure of the fight has significantly changed. Email is still free, so is youtube. Go for it. I am not against that war, mind you. I am all for it. The troubling thing about what happened is that the presentation of the proposal was sabotaged. In great corporate terms, that doesn’t mean it’s good: it means it’s a killer.
As for “legacy”… frankly, wasn’t it Kuhn who kept saying that sometimes we have to wait for the old geese to die before a paradigm can be shifted?
November 9th, 2009 - 12:33 pm
[…] that weren’t enough, Jomar Silva from the ODF Alliance Brazil has posted its latest revelations about the infamous Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) on OOXML in Geneva and how Alex Brown, its dubious convener, did everything to stop some delegations asking […]
December 10th, 2009 - 4:24 pm
[…] if the dirty things he did with Brazil during the OpenXML BRM in ISO wasn’t sufficient, now Alex Brown suggests in his blog that Brazil shouldn’t be a SC34 […]
December 18th, 2009 - 2:31 am
@Alex, brazilians never give up.
December 25th, 2009 - 8:01 pm
@Alex, the “standard” was approved, but, is it already usable?