13 Ways of Looking at a Flawed Process: JTC1 Recommends Process Reforms
I Among twenty snowy mountains/ The only moving thing/ Was the eye of the black bird.
II I was of three minds/ Like a tree/ In which there are three blackbirds...
V I do not know which to prefer/ The beauty of inflections/ Or the beauty of innuendoes,/ The blackbird whistling/ Or just after...Wallace Stevens, Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird, 1917
Although much of the brouhaha of the OOXML adoption process has abated, the post-partum process of reviewing how Joint Technical Committee One (JTC1), the ISO/IEC body that gave birth to both ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF) and OXMLISO/IEC IS 29500 (OOXML), continues. More specifically, meetings continue to be held in which a variety of related matters are being considered, including the ongoing maintenance of each standard, and whether and how the Directives that control the deliberations of JTC1 committees might profitably be amended to address the concerns that arose during the consideration of these two overlapping document format standards.
Most recently, representatives of JTC1 and the SWG Directives committee met in Nara (JTC1) and Osaka (SWG), Japan to review these weighty matters. As has been the case in the past, a variety of those directly involved in the ODF/OOXML saga wrote about the results of this latest meeting, including three bloggers who attended the Ballot Resolution Meeting that served as the climax of the OOXML adoptive process: Alex Brown, Rick Jelliffe and Tim Bray. You can find their alternately contrapuntal and contrary observations here, here and here, respectively. I did not attend the gathering in Nara, but I have read the recommendations made at that meeting (as well as Alex's, Rick's and Tim's commentaries on them), and ruminated a bit on the recommendations and the events that inspired them. Here is my own sense of what others have also observed.
First, let me note that the meetings apparently covered quite a bit of useful ground, although the publicly available report is, as usual, brief. Rick Jelliffe includes a summary of the results in his blog entry and then focuses primarily on two issues: progress made in harmonizing expectations and actions between OASIS and JTC1 on ODF maintenance, and an inconclusive recommendation made regarding the issue of when more than one ISO/IEC standard to the same purpose should be permissible. Alex Brown also focuses on the ODF/JTC1 maintenance progress made (a topic that he has written about before, most recently here). He also lobs a few recreational grenades at one of his favorite targets (a/k/a, in his words, the "tinfoil hat brigade"), which in turn inspired a cry of foul from Tim Bray. Comment threads follow at Rick's and Alex's blog entries (including posts by all three authors).
For those in withdrawal following the end of the presidential election in the US, you may find an hour or two's relief picking apart this tangled skein of sense and sensibility, pride and prejudice. And, of course, you might want to see the official report of the meeting, which can be found here, and which is also pasted in below. The lengthy Resolutions Document (there were 53 resolutions adopted in all) can be found here (although only two resolutions, pasted in at the end of this blog entry, relate to ODF and OOXML).
So with all of that said, here is what caught my eye as I peered through the barbaric glass at this latest wintry scene:
1. Standards Maintenance: Alex Brown rightly finds fault in the Directives. He also assumes good intentions now on both sides as regards coming to an acceptable agreement between OASIS and JTC1 on ODF maintenance (this is a happy development, as earlier there were concerns on the ODF side over whether JTC1 was trying to take over complete control of ODF, and on the JTC1 side, over whether OASIS was addressing error requests quickly enough). But I think that this narrow focus on the Directives misses a bigger picture, which is that neither the PAS nor the Fast Track process works well for consortium standards at all in the first instance. While I was not personally involved in the negotiation of any past or present understandings between OASIS and JTC1 relating to ODF, I have been involved in the submission of other standards under the PAS process, and have found that process to be ill defined, inflexible, and (worst of all) glacial.
Moreover, the costs and time required to prepare a standard for submission are very high, requiring the scarce and quite expensive services of professionals skilled in that craft. For many consortia, this expense is prohibitive. Other issues relate to whether handing over control of a standard that must continue to evolve rapidly will meet market demands. One would think that by now, a well-defined set of procedures would be in place to negotiate maintenance issues at the time of submission, but this does not appear to be the case.
Considering that ODF has already progressed from the OASIS version 1.0 that was originally submitted to JTC1 to OASIS version 1.1 (and indeed version 1.2 is now nearing completion), concerns over errata in version 1.0 appear almost quaint. As between the formally adopted ISO/IEC standard and the most current, fully-featured version of what is, after all, a tool and not an end in itself, the marketplace will clearly utilize the latter. What is needed, in my view, is for the entire interrelation of consortia and JTC1 to be reviewed in order to develop a more flexible, responsive, and nimble way for these two worlds to efficiently collaborate, allowing a single, most accurate, and most state of the art standard to be available to those that would implement it.
2. BRM Reform: Recommendation 5 from the Nara meeting addresses issues encountered at the OOXML BRM. As I did not participate in the meeting in Nara, I can't speak to why various elements came out as they did. As a result, I am both startled and dismayed at what is, and what is not, included in the recommendation.
Some of what appears simply restates what I would have assumed was already the rule: that participants should represent their National Bodies and their positions and not (presumably) those of their employers. Other elements would institutionalize judgments made with respect to the Geneva BRM that were questioned by some, while others would go further. For example, at the BRM, all National Bodies that voted, and not only those that had appended comments to their votes, attended. The recommendation would permit all those that were eligible to vote to attend the BRM, regardless of whether they had in fact exercised their franchise to cast a ballot. Such inclusivity sounds wholesome, until one remembers that the BRM was limited to 120 participants. Could such an attendance limit be applied in the future, and if so, what would the impact on the quality of the outcome be if anyone, regardless of whether they had previously spent time to understand the standard under review, could "bump" someone with deep familiarity?
I am also troubled by the following elements of this recommendation:
7) The Project Editor must prepare an Editor’s proposed disposition of ballot comments in sufficient time prior to the BRM to allow consideration by National Bodies. This editor’s proposed disposition of comments document will be reviewed during the ballot resolution meeting
8) A disposition of ballot comments approved during the meeting must be circulated following the meeting for the information of all National Bodies
9) When all comments have been addressed and a disposition of comments has been approved by the meeting, the BRM meeting criteria have been met
Why troubled? Because these elements, when added to those that come before, basically add up to a ratification of the conduct of the Geneva BRM. To my reading, not one single element of Recommendation 5 addresses any of the concerns raised relating to the BRM - the voting procedures adopted, the amount of time to be provided in advance to consider proposed dispositions, or the timing of the delivery of a complete specification prior to a vote (admittedly this last element is beyond the scope of the BRM itself, but this concern could have been the subject of a further recommendation).
Most startling to me is the third element of the BRM recommendation:
3) The comments must be discussed within a single meeting and NOT distributed over a series of meetings
Hello? This would make sense if another recommendation was to preclude hastily prepared, 6,000 page specifications from being admitted to the Fast Track and PAS processes, but absent that constraint, a single meeting rule would seem to guarantee the type of shallow review undertaken in Geneva. I would be very interested in hearing the thinking behind this recommendation from Alex or another attendee at the Nara meeting, as it completely escapes me.
More broadly, I would be delighted to learn more about the genesis of Recommendation 5 and the discussions that lay behind it. Did anyone ask for more? To my reading, rather than performing a serious review of what went wrong in Geneva, the SWG Directives committee has asked that the manner in which that BRM was conducted be institutionalized as the roadmap for the future. The most neutral way I can describe my reaction to such a request is as one of dismay.
3. The "one standard" rule: The Resolutions Document issued in connection with the meeting includes only a few resolutions relating to ODF and OOXML (I've pasted them in at the end of this blog entry). One of those resolutions touches on the complex question of when more than one standard is desirable for a single purpose. The resolution is worth reviewing in full, and reads as follows:
Resolution 49 – Clarification on Consistency of Standards vs Competing Specifications
JTC 1 notes the nature of standardization is to attract innovative ideas from multiple sources, choose the best ones and codify them in specifications that facilitate widespread use. Further, consistent with ISO’s and IEC’s "one standard" principle (for example TMB’s policy and principle statement on Global Relevance), there are times when one standard is all that is required to meet the needs of the marketplace, especially in a particular application area, and there are other instances where multiple standards make the most sense to respond to market requirements and to the needs of our society. In reducing the number of alternatives to a reasonable minimum, JTC 1 and other SDOs have demonstrated that it is not necessary and may not be desirable to choose only one alternative or option for standardization.
Further, JTC 1 notes that the cycle of innovation in the ICT sector has resulted in the continuous introduction of new technologies that improve upon existing standards. Any attempt to choose only one standard would ignore and threaten to inhibit the cycle of innovation that continues to fuel this industry. Therefore, JTC 1 recognizes its commitment to ISO’s and IEC’s "one standard" principle; however, it recognizes that neither it nor its SCs are in a position to mandate either the creation or the use of a single standard, and that there are times when multiple standards make the most sense in order to respond to the needs of the marketplace and of society at large. It is not practical to define, a priori, criteria for making these decisions. Therefore each standard must be judged by the National Bodies, based on their markets, on its own merits.
The resolution (which was adopted unanimously) is a fair review of a difficult topic. The bottom line effect of the resolution, however, when reviewed in the context of the OOXML process, is that there will apparently be no impediment in the future to the adoption of overlapping, and even totally duplicative standards by JTC1. The OOXML process would seem to demonstrate that, absent an impartial review of such questions at the beginning of the submission process, a vigorously promoted standard will likely always ultimately be adopted.
ISO/IEC need not, of course, assume responsibility for acting as the guardian at the gate to prevent the adoption of duplicative standards. The important lesson for stakeholders (such as governments) to take away, however, is to keep a sharp focus on what ISO/IEC adoption does, and does not, mean.
As the OOXML process, the statements made by ISO and IEC, and now these recommendations and resolutions abundantly demonstrate, what ISO/IEC JTC1 seeks to provide is a process and a setting within which specifications can be considered for adoption - and not a guarantee of any particular quality of outcome. More specifically, there is no warranty that a standard will not be duplicative, will be of consistent or minimum quality - or that its final text will even be available to review before it is voted upon.
Perhaps a better way could be found within a new process, hosted by a new organization, that is concerned with the quality, as well as quantity, of the standards it adopts.
For further blog entries on , click here
sign up for a free subscription to Standards Today today!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recommendation 1:
The SWG-Directives recommends that a meeting report of all future SWG-Directives
teleconferences be posted to the JTC 1 document register as a formal N-numbered
document.
Approved
Recommendation 2:
The SWG-Directives recommends that one week prior to a SWG-Directives related
teleconference, the SWG-Directives Secretary or relevant Ad Hoc Convener issue a
reminder (including joining instructions) to the SWG- Directives or ad hoc members.
Approved
Recommendation 3:
The SWG-Directives instructs the JTC 1 Secretariat and Chairman to issue the final
agenda for the 23-27 February 2009 meeting in Delft, Netherlands no later than 6
February 2009. Any contributions received after 4 February 2009 will be placed on a
subsequent agenda of the SWG-Directives. Multiple comment submissions by
National Bodies are allowed, or even encouraged if it allows comments to be
submitted at an earlier date.
The SWG-Directives confirms that it will meet 20-24 July 2009 in Berlin, Germany.
Approved
Recommendation 4:
The SWG-Directives instructs the SWG-Directives secretary to incorporate the
following concepts in the draft of the JTC 1 Supplement to be issued for National
Body comment:
1) To use and align the JTC 1 fast track process with ISO/IEC fast track process
augmenting the ISO/IEC process to meet JTC 1 unique needs
2) To eliminate constraints on the types of comments (technical; editorial)
National Bodies can submit with their votes
3) That the fast track process shall apply only to standards and NOT to
amendments. Amendments shall follow the “normal” amendment process
4) That an explanatory report similar to the PAS explanatory report shall
accompany a fast track submission
5) That the text of document N9309 (as amended by France) be included
Approved
Recommendation 5:
The SWG-Directives instructs the SWG-Directives secretary to incorporate the
following concepts (with more specific detail) in the draft of the JTC 1 Supplement to
be issued for National Body comment:
Operating under the ISO/IEC Fast Track process, the SWG-Directives agrees that if a
Ballot Resolution Meeting is necessary:
1) The purpose is to review and address ballot comments
2) The meeting must have a separate agenda and be convened as a separate
meeting even if it is in conjunction with/co-located with an SC/WG meeting
3) The comments must be discussed within a single meeting and NOT
distributed over a series of meetings
4) The meeting is open to the Fast track Submitter and to all National Bodies
regardless of whether or not the National Body has voted on the document
under review – no limitation on which National Body can participate
5) The meeting participants represent their National Body and their National
Body positions
6) All National Bodies have an equal say in any decisions made during the
meeting
7) The Project Editor must prepare an Editor’s proposed disposition of ballot
comments in sufficient time prior to the BRM to allow consideration by
National Bodies. This editor’s proposed disposition of comments document
will be reviewed during the ballot resolution meeting
8) A disposition of ballot comments approved during the meeting must be
circulated following the meeting for the information of all National Bodies
9) When all comments have been addressed and a disposition of comments has
been approved by the meeting, the BRM meeting criteria have been met
Approved
Appreciations:
Resolution A:
The SWG-Directives expresses its appreciation to the National Body of Japan for
inviting the SWG to Osaka and for the meeting facilities, lunches and refreshments.
The SWG-Directives wishes to especially thank Akio Kido and Yoshihisa Narui for
their assistance in planning and supporting the meeting.
Acclamation
Resolution B:
The SWG-Directives expresses its appreciation to its Convener, Mr. Scott Jameson,
for his leadership during the meeting and throughout his tenure as SWG-Directives
Convener. The group has benefited greatly from his guidance and expertise and we
wish him well in his future endeavors.
Acclamation
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
Document Description and Processing Languages
Secretariat: Japan (JISC)
Document Type: Meeting Resolutions
Document Title: Recommendations from the November 2008 JTC 1 SWG-Directives Meeting
in Osaka
Document Source: SWG-D Secretary
Reference: This is document is circulated to National Bodies for information.
Action ID: FYI
Resolution 13 – Cooperation Between SC 34 and OASIS on Maintenance of ODF/ISO/IEC 26300
a) JTC 1 recognizes the timely response (JTC 1 N9398) from OASIS to the SC 34 liaison statement (SC34 N1095/JTC 1 N9416), and thanks OASIS for the new draft errata to ODF 1.0. JTC 1 particularly welcomes OASIS's proposal to confer with JTC 1 and SC 34 to forge a genuine partnership for collaboratively handling the maintenance of ODF/IS 26300. JTC 1 requests SC 34 and OASIS to develop a document specifying the detailed operation of joint maintenance procedures, with a common goal of preparation of technically–equivalent documents, and taking into account the requirements and constraints of both standards bodies. SC 34 is requested to consider this document at its March 2009 plenary and report the results to JTC 1 following this meeting. b) JTC 1 instructs its Secretariat to forward the principles contained in document N9384 to OASIS and to the SWG–Directives for information and consideration.
Objection: Netherlands
Resolution 49 – Clarification on Consistency of Standards vs Competing Specifications
JTC 1 notes the nature of standardization is to attract innovative ideas from multiple sources, choose the best ones and codify them in specifications that facilitate widespread use. Further, consistent with ISO’s and IEC’s "one standard" principle (for example TMB’s policy and principle statement on Global Relevance), there are times when one standard is all that is required to meet the needs of the marketplace, especially in a particular application area, and there are other instances where multiple standards make the most sense to respond to market requirements and to the needs of our society. In reducing the number of alternatives to a reasonable minimum, JTC 1 and other SDOs have demonstrated that it is not necessary and may not be desirable to choose only one alternative or option for standardization.
Further, JTC 1 notes that the cycle of innovation in the ICT sector has resulted in the continuous introduction of new technologies that improve upon existing standards. Any attempt to choose only one standard would ignore and threaten to inhibit the cycle of innovation that continues to fuel this industry. Therefore, JTC 1 recognizes its commitment to ISO’s and IEC’s "one standard" principle; however, it recognizes that neither it nor its SCs are in a position to mandate either the creation or the use of a single standard, and that there are times when multiple standards make the most sense in order to respond to the needs of the marketplace and of society at large. It is not practical to define, a priori, criteria for making these decisions. Therefore each standard must be judged by the National Bodies, based on their markets, on its own merits.
Unanimous