[Updated: The following explanation is presented in linear fashion for clarity. As Alex Brown points out in the comments to this post, each step is of equal importance, and are applied simultaneously. Alex is helping to maintain a detailed explanation at the subsection of the OOXML Wikipedia entry that addresses the ISO process. Alex will be the chair of the BRM (in ISO-speak, the "Convenor") - a difficult job indeed.]
Step one: Count all P votes cast, and determine whether at least 50% of P members have voted
If yes, then proceed to next step
If no, then the resolution fails
Step two: Subtract all abstentions (in other words, throw them out)
Step three: Determine whether 2/3's of the remaining P votes are to approve
If No, then the resolution fails
If yes, then go to step four
Step four: Determine whether 25% or more of the total votes cast by both P and O members are "No" votes
If yes, then the resolution fails
If no, then the resolution passes
From this, it becomes clear that P votes are far more important than O votes, and therefore why the recent upsurge in P members – from 30 to 41 this year – is so significant. We will see what the actual votes will be next week, but my expectation at this point is that the votes cast by those that were P members on January 1 of 2007 will be heavily negative, and that OOXML would have failed decisively absent the recent upgrades.
From the above, you can also see that an abstention is the next best thing to a "yes," since it helps make the 50% test, and also avoids another vote in the no category, which can't exceed 25% of all votes cast. As a result, a conversion of the Swedish vote from a "yes" to an abstention, due to irregularities, is still helpful to the OOXML cause. That's because if the vote would have been "no" without the sudden increase in membership (and it appears that it would have been), the increase still succeeded in taking a no vote off the list – a tactical victory.
So now let's turn to what happens after the votes are cast.
Step five: The ballots and comments will be sent to Ken Holman, the Chair of SC 34 (Canada currently holds the Secretariat roll for SC 34, but recently announced that it wishes to relinquish that role. As a result, Canada will later be replaced by Japan). The votes and comments will also be sent to Ecma and to all JTC1 members
Step six: Ecma and Microsoft have until January 14 to come up with their suggestions for how to resolve the comments. Those suggestions can be to ignore or to address any given comment, and if the latter, how to address it. Note that while Ecma and Microsoft will have four and a half months to make their recommendations, the JTC1 members will only have about six weeks to review those recommendations before the BRM convenes on February 25.
Step seven: SC 34 reviews the suggestions, and forms its opinion on what should be done with each comment. One task would be to determine whether some issues are "irresolvable."
If yes, then cancel the BRM, and the process ends
If no, then consider how to resolve issues
Step eight: The BRM meeting is held. If the initial vote was to approve, then the process completes with the agreement on which comments should be accommodated. If the initial vote was no, then the question is whether enough comments can be resolved to the satisfaction of those that voted no.
Step nine: If necessary, revote. And note: if there is a revote, it will be of all P members at that time. So keep an eye on whether there are further upgrades of O members to P membership, even after the September 2 vote closes.
That leaves one last topic: why does it matter that SC 34 has more than doubled in size this year?
Here's why: if a National Body votes no, it has an obligation to attend the BRM. On the other hand, if it votes "yes," then its role is basically done. But – if it joins SC 34, then it has an obligation to participate in the process of addressing the comments. If SC engages in meetings before the BRM, it has the obligation to participate in them. And at the BRM itself, it also has an obligation to help resolve the comments. Since the resolution is by "consensus," then the more proponents of OOXML are members of SC 34, the greater the pressure to resolve comments in a manner favorable to Microsoft – if it so happens that Microsoft is pulling the strings of all of these new SC 34 members.
It will be interesting indeed to see how the votes come in next week, and how those votes map against those that have upgraded their status, and to those that have conceived a recent urge to be part of SC 34. I will report on, and analyze, those results as soon as they are available.
For further blog entries on here , click
subscribe to the free Consortium Standards Bulletin