As I reported recently, the Massachusetts ITD has announced its intention to add Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML specification (now Ecma 376) to its list of approved "open standards," subject to a very short comment period that will expire on July 20. I have great concern that such a decision may be as influential outside of Massachusetts as was the original decision by the ITD in August of 2005 to include ODF, and exclude OOXML. That first decision raised the credibility and visibility of ODF dramatically, and it is fair to say that all of the later successes of ODF were made possible by that decision.
While the ITD has now announced that it believes that Ecma 376 has met its requirements, it is important to note that two years ago it reversed a similar conclusion as a result of energetic public input. That can happen again, and interim CIO Bethan Pepoli has stated as much in a widely reported quote.
Whether the ITD truly believes that Ecma 376 meets its requirements, or whether it has finally folded to the significant and ongoing pressure to which it has long been subjected cannot be known. But what is clear to me is that if enough people provide carefully considered and persuasive comments to the ITD prior to the expiration of the comment period, the ITD will be given an opportunity and the "cover" to reverse its position if it so wishes.
Preparing such comments is time consuming, but it is also important. I took several hours to do so yesterday, and have just sent them to the ITD. You can to, and I hope that you will. The ITD's comment address is email@example.com, and the deadline is next Friday. If you're a believer in open standards, please don't let that deadline pass without making your thoughts known.
Here are the comments that I sent in:
July 9, 2007Information Technology Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attention: Beth Ann Pepoli Re: Public Comment on ETRM Draft 4.0 Dear Ms. Pepoli: As you know, I have provided frequent commentary on the progress of open document formats in Massachusetts over the past two years, both at my blog as well as in numerous interviews with the press. By way of disclosure of conflicts, I have acted as outside legal counsel to OASIS, the developer of ODF, during and before the ITD's consideration of ODF, although I have not been directly involved in the development of ODF itself. More recently, I have become a Board member of, and my firm has become legal counsel to, the Linux Foundation, which supports the main operating system competitor to Microsoft Windows. My firm and I represent numerous other standards and open source organizations, a list of which can be found here . We also provide legal counsel to hundreds of technology companies and other clients. However, the comments below are rendered solely in my individual capacity as a resident of Massachusetts and as a proponent of open standards, and have not been requested, reviewed or approved by OASIS, the Linux Foundation, my law firm, or by any other clients or other parties. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the ITD for the many years of leadership that it has provided in its support of open document formats. Secretary of Administration and Finance Eric Kriss and CIO Peter Quinn recognized the great risk to the public interest inherent in a transition from paper to electronic archives based upon proprietary formats, and acted responsively and responsibly to protect the citizens of Massachusetts from the very real possibility that our records and, indeed, our history, could be lost to future generations. These actions were taken in the face of stiff and ongoing opposition from many quarters, and too often at great personal cost and stress for the ITD's leadership. But as a result of their willingness to blaze a trail forward, profound changes have been wrought. These changes include the raising of global awareness around the importance of open document formats, the opening up of Microsoft's OOXML formats and their contribution to Ecma, and the proliferation of numerous proprietary and open source implementations of ODF. It is possible that some or all of these results might have occurred someday whether or not the ITD acted as it did. That is a question to which we will never know the answer. But what we do know is that it was the actions of the ITD in September of 2005 that provided the first, vital credibility to ODF that allowed all of these other important things to happen. And yet the work that the ITD began in 2005 is not finished. The world as it existed then was dominated by a single office productivity suite. And so the world remains today. In such a world, it may be more feasible that legacy documents can be accessed as a result of open document formats, but unless documents implementing those formats can be accessed through multiple competing products, not much will have been gained. A world dominated by a single office suite has many weaknesses, including lack of price competition, lack of innovation, lack of choice, and increased susceptibility to security breaches, among other concerns. While the contribution of OOXML to Ecma will provide a greater likelihood of being able to access documents created in Office in the future, even that outcome is subject to a number of contingencies. Those contingencies include the following, each of which calls into question whether Ecma 376 can truly be considered to be an "open standard:"
- Will Ecma 376 become a true consensus standard? Like any other vendor, Microsoft will be free to completely implement Ecma 376, or only partially implement it. As the dominant product implementing Ecma 376 as a complete office productivity suite for the indefinite future, there will be little chance that the working group further developing the standard will include any feature that Microsoft does not intend to support, as the utility of such an extension of the standard would likely be nil. As a result, any future evolution of Ecma 376 will be far more influenced by Microsoft than has any prior "open" standard been influenced by any single vendor.
- Will Microsoft continue to contribute all new features it develops to Ecma 376? Like any other vendor, Microsoft will have no obligation to offer future technology to Ecma. But as the dominant office suite provider, any proprietary extensions included by Microsoft in Office will become part of the environment of the "billions and billions of documents" that Microsoft has pledged to protect with OOXML. Past history has shown that the creation of proprietary extensions to standards by Microsoft has often served to weaken, or defeat such standards. If any such extensions are created, then many, and perhaps most, users will conclude that the only "safe" office suite to use will be Office. Again, is any standard truly "open" if its continuing utility is based upon the future product decisions of a single vendor?
- Will there be true choice in the marketplace? At 6,039 pages, it is unlikely that any office suite will be created that fully implements Ecma 376. Not only would the smagnitude of the challenge of developing a full office suite that natively supports OOXML (as compared to merely saving to OOXML through translators, as will be the case with Novell's version of OpenOffice) be daunting, but Microsoft would always have too vast a lead, as well as too much of an advantage in Ecma regarding future features. As a result, the ability to exchange documents with true fidelity between Office and any other product is likely to remain low. Can any specification that is today fully and natively implemented by a single proprietary product be truly considered to be an "open standard?" Is such a standard not instead simply useful for creating conversion tools to be used in connection with a single proprietary product?
- Will there be true innovation in the marketplace? The microscopic level of detail represented by those same 6,039 pages will place a straitjacket on innovation, restricting any implementation to rigid conformance.
- Will there be true competition in the marketplace? For more than a decade, no new effort of significance has been launched to challenge Microsoft's dominance in office productivity software. Since the ITD's decision, however, that marketplace has become energized, with more than a dozen proprietary and open source office suites available, all of which share one characteristic in common – they all implement ODF, and their developers are all relying upon the hope that customers will find value in that fact.
Very truly yours,
For further blog entries on ODF and OOXML, click here