As I reported on July 23, INCITS, the US balloting body on the OOXML vote, put out a ballot to see whether the US should vote to approve OOXML, with the ballot to close on August 9.  That ballot has now closed on schedule, and there is a public link that shows the vote - which failed, with 8 in favor, 7 opposed, and one abstaining.  As I noted previously, a vote of 9 in favor would have been required for passage.  That number is a simple majority of the 16 INCITS Executive Board members that have voting privileges on this ballot (in fact, the Board has 18 members, but due to attendance rules, only 16 of the 18 had voting priviliges on this ballot).

There is a second leg of the vote, which also failed:  out of the total number responding (in this case, all 16), the abstentions (one) are subtracted, yielding a number (fifteen) of which two-thirds (in this case ten) would need to be in the affirmative.

The link above includes links to the individual comments filed by eleven Executive Board members.

I'll be providing a special focus on the standards side of LF's work, while Karen will be providing particular expertise on open source licensing. Together we'll be collaborating on legal and overall LF strategy as members of the senior management team. It's a great effort to be part of, and a privilege as well, given the crucial role that both open source and open standards will play in the future of software, and the fact that each needs the support of the other. The Linux Foundation is unique in being the crucible in which this peaceful and productive coexistence is being perfected.

There is no question that all over the world the competing interests in the Open XML standardization process are going to use all tactics available to them within the rules.  -  Microsoft's Director of Corporate Standards Jason Matusow

Well, here's a chance for you to make your own judgment, based upon a primary source rather than a subjective call-out. That primary source is a statement posted by Microsoft SA (as in South Africa) at a PR site called MyPressportal, urging the South African National Body to vote "yes" on OOXML. The version below is complete and unaltered.

 [Updated:  You can view the comments at Slashdot on this blog entry and story here.]

In a not unanticipated move, Massachusetts announced today that Ecma 376, the name given to the Microsoft Office Open XML formats following their adoption by Ecma, would be acceptable for use by the Executive Agencies of the Commonwealth. The announcement was made even as it appears more questionable whether the National Body members of ISO/IEC JTC1 will conclude that the formats are in suitable form to be granted global standards status, and despite the fact that the ITD received comments from 460 individuals and organizations during the brief comment period announced on July 5.  

The Commonwealth continues on its path toward open, XML-based document formats without reflecting a vendor or commercial bias in ETRM v4.0. Many of the comments we received identify concerns regarding the Open XML specification.  We believe that these concerns, as with those regarding ODF, are appropriately handled through the standards setting process, and we expect both standards to evolve and improve. Moreover, we believe that the impact of any legitimate concerns raised about either standard is outweighed substantially by the benefits of moving toward open, XML-based document format standards. Therefore, we will be moving forward to include both ODF and Open XML as acceptable document formats. All ">comments received are posted on this web site.

“The INCITS Executive Board has not yet determined the U.S. position on this ballot,” said Jennifer Garner, Director Standards Programs for INCITS. “In accordance with INCITS policies, details of board discussions are not public. However, the committee expresses appreciation for the large number of stakeholder inputs received and acknowledges that full and careful consideration of the comments will take some time.” 

For this reason, I conducted an extensive interview over the weekend with an individual that is a member of both the V1 Technical Committee as well as the INCITS Executive Board in order to learn the steps that have been agreed upon to finalize the US position, so that we may all make the best sense of what we read and hear between now and the conclusion of the comment period. This individual has attended the meetings and conference calls in question in both V1 and the Executive Board, and is well versed with the procedures of INCITS, ANSI and ISO/IEC JTC1, as well as an employee of an IT vendor member of INCITS. In this entry, I will describe in detail the balloting process that I am told will follow from this point forward, as well as speculate on what the ultimate decision will be, based on events to date and the composition of the INCITS Executive Board.

I'm a bit mystified by a reference to me in a post that Microsoft's Jason Matusow added to his blog yesterday.  In that entry, Jason states in part:

The general discussion in the media and blogs has been about the vote itself, but Rob Weir from IBM came out with some comments that really should be addressed. Rob points out that membership in the V1 committee has changed in the past month, and the insinuation is that it is somehow inappropriate that companies and individuals would show up to voice their opinion. What’s particularly troubling is that this isn’t just happening with INCITS/V1 but Rob seems determined to question the motivations behind national body membership in Spain, Portugal and Italy as well.  So let’s take some facts into consideration.

 

Participation Hypocrisy:

 

• IBM and ODF advocates (ODF Foundation, Andy Updegrove…) repeatedly have called for mobilization of those who opposed Open XML.

   

I'm having a bit of trouble following Jason's reasoning here.  Indeed, it's true that I have called for individuals to write to the Massachusetts ITD - in response to an ITD request for public comments - to make their feelings known on ODF and OOXML in a situation where those comments impose no obligation on the decision makers to accommodate those that offer the comments.

But I fail to see how where the hypocricy comes in (on my part), when Jason equates that conduct with what appears to be a global phenomenon of sudden interest by Microsoft business partners, that have heretofor taken no interest in document format stnadard setting, in becoming eleventh hour *voting* members of National Bodies that will determine whether OOXML is adopted as an ISO/IEC JTC1 global standard.  In the former case, those affected are letting those that can make decisions know of their feelings, while in the latter, a select group seems to be intent on (how to say this delicately) stuffing the ballot box. 

Am I missing something here?

Karl Best of Kavi sent me a link this morning to another national body voting report, this time from South Africa.  According to a blog post at  by James Archibald, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) has voted 13 to 4 not to approve Ecma 376/OOXML.  The blog identifies SABS member Yvonne Ndhlovu as the project leader for the local leg of the process, and the source of the infomation.  The more detailed tally of the vote, according to Ndholovu, 2 votes of yes, with comments; 2 votes of yes, without comments; and 13 votes of no, with comments.  No information is given as to the nature of the comments, or the likelihood that the comments relating to the no votes would be capable, or likely to be accommodated in a later step of the process

Now we are reaching the end of the five month full review period, and things are getting interesting as reports begin to trickle in from one National Body around the world after the other about how the national votes are going. Here are a few examples.

As significantly, Rob reports that a very dramatic increase in the membership of V1 was observed in the months leading up to the vote – most of whom were coincidentally were representatives of Microsoft business partners, and the great majority of whom voted as a block in favor of advancing the specification in a manner that would permit, and against any vote that would prevent, final approval as an ISO/IEC standard. Rob describes the events to date as follows:

A few days ago, I posted my comments to the Mass. ITD on whether or not it should include OOXML in its list of approved standards.  I also urged anyone with an opinion on this issue to send their own comments to the ITD at this address:  standards@state.ma.us.  Now, Pamela Jones, who has contributed hugely to the ODF effort in the past, has just posted a long and informative entry at Groklaw, pointing her readers to various resources that they may wish to consult in preparing their own comments, as well as ideas on the various areas upon which comments may be relevant.  PJ has done her usual great job on this, and I'd encourage you to read her entry to see how her observations strike you.

It's particularly important for you to consider doing so, because I learned from a reporter today that only about 50 comments have been filed with the ITD so far.  With only 8 days to comment left, this compares very poorly to the over 150 comments that were received by the ITD in 2005.  I have no idea what percentage of these comments are pro OOXML and what percentage urge the ITD to stick only with ODF, but given the small number in total, it could easily be disproportionate in one direction or the other, especially if a concerted effort has been made by one constituency or the other to influence the outcome.

Regular readers will know that I think that this is an important issue.  Right now, the default decision in the ITD's new version of the Enterprise Technical Reference Model is to include OOXML.  In my last post, I paraphrased one slogan from the activist 1960's that helped to shape a lot of who I am today.  I'd like to now offer another catchphrase from those braver and more involved times, this time a chant from the many protest rallies that punctuated the antiwar movement: "Silence means consent."