Microsoft Reports Victory in Preliminary ISO Ballot for Office Open XML

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

September 4, 2007, 9:14 AM

Update ribbon (small)

3:15 pm ET September 4, 2007 - The International Organization for Standardization finally issued a statement this evening, Geneva time, saying a preliminary vote to publish Microsoft's Office Open XML as an international standard failed to meet the requisite two-thirds majority of support to attain fast-track status. The standard itself has not failed, contrary to many reports this morning.

But for OOXML to emerge beyond the draft status, Microsoft now has until February - not March, as was earlier reported here and elsewhere - to address the comments of members who voted both in the affirmative ("yes, with comments") and the negative ("no, with comments"). At that time, if members believe Microsoft has addressed those comments adequately, they may change their vote to outright approval.

As the ISO account this afternoon stated, "The objective of the meeting will be to review and seek consensus on possible modifications to the document in light of the comments received along with the votes. If the proposed modifications are such that national bodies then wish to withdraw their negative votes, and the above acceptance criteria are then met, the standard may proceed to publication."

Sadly, even the ISO's account of the vote requires us to take out our calculators - literally no one involved in this process thus far has presented a simple rundown of the tally. However, the ISO's account this afternoon does clear up a very important point about the balloting process which has been misconstrued elsewhere (and about which BetaNews hasn't said much to date until we felt we could clear it up): The phrase "participating" or "P-class voters" refers to member countries who also serve on the ISO/IEC joint committee JTC 1. There are 41 member countries who are part of JTC 1, among 104 total members. The countries who recently applied to have their voting status "upgraded to P-class" are those who urged the ISO to make their vote actually count, because despite the 104 number, it's the 41 who actually count.

Among those 41 P-class members, 22 votes were positive, or "yea," in favor of fast-track status, while 11 votes were negative or "nay." The remainder, we can assume, were for "yes, with comments," which would bring the total number of positive voters up to 74%, in line with Microsoft's victory declaration earlier this morning.

6:15 pm ET September 4, 2007 - A Microsoft spokesperson contacted BetaNews this afternoon with a somewhat different account of the vote breakdown than the ISO's own official account. What makes it noteworthy is that it actually paints a less advantageous picture for Microsoft than its own triumphant proclamation of early this morning, although the spokesperson said she would take further steps to verify the numbers she was given.

Based on the spokesperson's information, nine members of the P-class voters did abstain from the process. Of the remaining number who voted either affirmatively or negatively, 17 members (not 22) voted yea, while 15 voted nay. If that math is correct, Microsoft would need to sway four voters, not just one, in order to meet the requisite two-thirds majority among the non-abstaining voters.

But when the spokesperson agreed with information we repeated saying only one voter needed to be swayed, she agreed that both sets of information did not correlate, and that she would do further research and get back with us.

9:30 pm ET September 4, 2007 - Our Microsoft spokesperson did indeed contact us, with what she was told is a confirmation of the final vote tally, using the above math: 17 yea, 15 nay, 9 abstentions. When viewed from that perspective, it suddenly doesn't seem so much like a 74% victory.


While this isn't exactly total victory for Microsoft, it also isn't tragic defeat as has been trumpeted elsewhere today. In fact, not only is DIS 29500 very much alive and well, this could be exactly the result Microsoft wants and needs: If it had received just one more full "yea" vote, giving DIS 29500 fast-track status for approval, the outcry among both critics and lukewarm supporters over the ISO's failure to take a multitude of technical comments into account, would have been tremendous.

This way, Microsoft gets the opportunity to be seen as cooperating with the international community, with its goal to sway only a single "yes, with comments" voter its direction come February. If that happens, it will be much more difficult for critics to ridicule the standards process as defective or fraudulent.


9:14 am September 4, 2007 - Microsoft's carefully worded statement this morning appears to indicate that 51 member countries voted "Yes, with comments," with 18 countries either voting in the negative or abstaining.

The comments were alluded to by this sentence: "Along with their votes, the National Bodies also provided invaluable technical comments designed to improve the specification." It went on to say members indicated they will render their final approval in March 2008 once those comments have been adequately addressed.

Sources are reporting this morning that a 74% positive vote is just 1% short (or one vote short) of a three-fourths majority, which would have given draft specification DIS 29500 "fast track" status. Another report - slightly conflicting - says Microsoft only received 53% support among the "P" group ("participating," or fully qualified) of countries, which is short of the two-thirds requirement necessary for fast track status. There will likely be multitudes of conflicting reports throughout the day prior to a formal ISO statement, and BetaNews will report those from generally reliable sources.

Linux Foundation attorney Andrew Updegrove, who has been following the standards process, was apparently told the 74% news and proclaimed the vote a failure for OOXML, since it was not apparently not actually adopted on Sunday. Updegrove characterized Microsoft's statement this morning as "putting the best spin it can on the results," explaining that some of the 51 votes may not actually count as "participating" under ISO rules.

Similar proclamations of failure were made for OOXML's passage through the ECMA standards board as recently as late July. However, that US standards body did eventually conclude Microsoft had addressed its members' comments to their satisfaction.

If indeed the ISO voted on Sunday "Yes, with comments" as Microsoft has indicated, it means the company may have six months to address technical issues raised by the National Bodies (voting ISO members representing their respective countries' standards organizations), before a vote for final ratification.

Some countries' concerns may actually be quite serious, including mandates that the company provide better "mappings" between the older Office formats and OOXML, and between the already standardized OpenDocument Format and OOXML; as well as provide assurances that Microsoft will not enforce its patents on elements that play a role in OOXML, against competitive adopters.

Addressing those concerns could mean making changes to the format specification itself, which may at some point have to be retrofitted to Office 2007, as well as any other programs - such as Corel WordPerfect - that may implement OOXML support in the meantime.

Microsoft noted the "unprecedented level of participation in the standardization of a document format," which ODF supporters last week noted with some skepticism. Yesterday, Updegrove was so certain of OOXML's pending defeat that he already published its epitaph.

"Rather than simply voting 'no,' these National Bodies played by the rules," Updegrove wrote, believing the preliminary ballot would be defeated, "and did what they are supposed to do: They took the time (a lot of time, given the length of the OOXML specification), during an unfairly brief period, to do what Microsoft and Ecma should have done to begin with, and didn't: properly vetted the specification to make sure that if it is offered to the world with the blessing of ISO/IEC JTC1, that it has met minimum quality standards to be entitled to bear that designation."

On Sunday, ODF system developer and OOXML adoption supporter Dennis Hamilton, prior to knowing the final vote tally, urged both supporters and opponents to work together toward some form of interoperability, no matter the vote's outcome.

"We are seeing conversations and posturing reminiscent of the cold war, the 'axis of evil' proclamations, and other excesses of global politics," Hamilton wrote. "You'd think the stakes were civilization as we know it. I suspect many of the participants believe exactly that. All I can say is, 'Follow the money.' Then get a grip."

Add a Comment (14 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By sidney1310

edited Sep 5, 2007 - 6:56 PM

OOXML already has fast-track status. The vote was not about that. This vote was one step in the fast-track process. If there had been a 2/3 majority of P-voters voting "yes" (with or without comments would not matter) AND less than 1/4 of all voters (P, O and plain members) voting "no" (with or without comments) then OOXML would be through the fast-track process and would be a standard. In every case a vote of "abstention" is not counted, signaling that a member body has taken some time to look over the proposal but did not reach a consensus for whatever reason.

The only relevance of a vote with comments is that "no with comments" is counted as a "no" vote but the comments are supposed to be addressed in the next stage, the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM), and if comments can be resolved to a voter's satisfaction the vote can be changed to a "yes". Realize that the standards process is not supposed to be as political as this one has become. A "no" vote is supposed to be accompanied by a list of technical objections that can be worked through until the standard really does satisfy everyone. Unless of course a technical objection just can't be solved, in which case the standard might not make it through the final stage.

The victory proclaimed by the anti-OOXML-as-standard crowd is that this vote did not secure the standard. The victory claimed by Microsoft in their weirdly spun press release is that OOXML was not so unanimously voted down that ISO would not bother with going on to the next step. But that was never a possibility. Nobody credible on the anti-OOXML side, including Andy, has written an epitaph. This vote was a narrow squeak through that allows the final battle to be fought between now and February.

In terms of numbers in the press release, Microsoft played some very strange games. 74% counts the number of "yes" votes (with or without comments) of all members (P, O, and plain member) who did not vote abstention. What is strange is that those votes only count for the second of the criteria, in which there must be less than 25% "no" votes. 18 out of 69 meant 26% "no" votes, therefore not passing. The number Microsoft did not mention was the approx 53% of the non-abstaining P-votes that were "yes", well below the required 2/3 for that.

Microsoft's emphasis on "yes with comments" and their urging people to vote that way if they have concerns was also misleading. The only comments that are formally recognized are those that accompany a "no" vote, as those comments are addressed at the BRM to give the voter an opportunity to be satisfied and switch to a "yes".

Even stranger was the press releases claim that the 51 "yes" votes compare favorably with the 31 "yes" votes that the ODF standard got and the 15 that PDF-A got at this stage of the vote. What they neglect to mention was that ODF and PDF-A votes were both unanimous approvals with no dissenting comments substantive enough to require a BRM to be scheduled. The 51 votes for OOXML were really just 22 if you count just the P-voters, and were only 53% of the P-voters.

"the part I disagree with, to answer your question, is the part where you proclaimed the vote a failure and wrote its epitaph"

I looked over Andy's blog posting about the vote and could find no epitaph for OOXML. He did declare the failure of the vote to pass, something very different and demonstrably true:

"I projected that the OOXML vote in ISO/IEC JTC1 would fail [...] the vote failed both tests for approval"

In the same article Andy has a section on what are the next steps in which he quotes the ISO about scheduling the Ballot Resolution Meeting to attempt to meet the objections submitted in the "no, with comments" to attempt to turn them into yes votes.

OOXML as a fast-track standard is not dead. The comments are a big hurdle for it to overcome. In fact, if all the comments were really addressed, all but the most rabid anti-OOXML diehard would probably really not have an objection to the standard. The fear of the "anti-OOXML" forces is that Microsoft will succeed in their tactics of packing committees with supporters and otherwise subverting the consensus process to get enough "no" votes switched without fully addressing some very basic concerns that are lurking within the thousands of comments that have been submitted for resolution.

Score: 0

By andrew.updegrove@gesmer.com

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 10:43 PM

From your article, "Linux Foundation attorney Andrew Updegrove, who has been following the standards process, was apparently told the 74% news and proclaimed the vote a failure for OOXML, since it was not apparently not actually adopted on Sunday. Updegrove characterized Microsoft's statement this morning as "putting the best spin it can on the results," explaining that some of the 51 votes may not actually count as "participating" under ISO rules." What part of that statement do you disagree with? As Microsoft's Jason Matusow agrees at his blog, and as the ISO press release states, OOXML failed both parts of the voting test, which requires a 66 2/3s% positive P member vote (not 75%) and does not allow a 25% overall no vote, in order to succeed.

- Andy Updegrove

Score: 0

By SMFulton3

posted Sep 5, 2007 - 8:53 AM

Hi, Andy.

Based on the updated information ISO gave me Wednesday morning, it's apparent that while OOXML did not make the fast-track cut, the draft garnered enough support among P-class members to give Microsoft a five-month period to address those members' concerns and comments. We knew going into this process that there would be such comments; as we learned with the ECMA process, you put your comments on the table, you withhold your full support until you're satisfied that Microsoft answered your questions, and you change your vote to full-yes if you're satisfied with the results.

Now, we all want Microsoft to address those concerns. I would assume it would be better for everyone if it corrects the known problems rather than whine and whimper and proclaim it's being treated unfairly - which I don't see it doing. So Microsoft makes a real effort to address those concerns and improve OOXML, in response to the international community.

Thus the part I disagree with, to answer your question, is the part where you proclaimed the vote a failure and wrote its epitaph.

Yours,

Scott

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 2:49 PM

A ballot on whether to publish the draft standard ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML file formats, as an International Standard by ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has not achieved the required number of votes for approval.

-- from the official ISO press release

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 12:06 PM

If, in fact, ISO certification can be bought, the impact is enormous. This could become a real Pandora's Box.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Sep 4, 2007 - 12:03 PM

"Who" at Microsoft reported this false positive? The conservative New York Times said the same, but Infoworld just posted contrary results, that MS-OOXML failed. So says ars technica, IDG, CNET, and even Microsoft itself.

Even with Microsoft packing the national bodies with 26 of their business partners in almost every country during the last week of voting, they still lost. To cheat and still lose... that's humilating. No-OOXML has the full sordid details of all the classic republican dirty tricks that Microsoft pulled over the past few months. Too bad they didn't count the vote with Diebold machines! But at least the bad guys lost one round.

Score: 0

By SMFulton3

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 12:27 PM

zridling, I think it only goes to show the strongly polarizing nature of this debate that it affects how we define "yes." While I too have seen the negative headlines, the apparent fact is that the draft did not fail. There was not enough of a super-majority of support for the draft to become fast-tracked - but we all knew how very many comments there were, so it should not have been fast-tracked under even the most optimistic projection. And still the fast track fell short by a single vote.

But the draft goes forth, and Microsoft will have its six months to either address the comments or not address them, and we go through another ballot next March. So remind me again, who lost?

-SF3

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 4:26 PM

Beta news lost because they read a Microsoft press release and expected truth.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 2:38 PM

"So remind me again, who lost?"

M$ lost round one. I have no doubt they will bribe and corrupt their way to getting the needed votes next time.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 5:46 PM

Just like those Republican$ with their dirty tricks, would I be surprised to find that you hate them too?

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 7:32 PM

I don't see what politics has to do with it, but i dislike both Republicans and Democrats equally as they are essentially one in the same.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Sep 5, 2007 - 7:47 AM

Interesting. However, I'd say that politics has to do with everything including this little issue, although in this case it's global politics.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 11:48 AM

Fast Track is dead

http://www.iso.org/iso/p...lease.htm?refid=Ref1070

This is only a temporary victory though. M$ will no doubt use the next few months to bribe more countries to vote in their favor. Funny how all the new countries which upgraded their membership voted in support of M$. Just a coincidence i guess. On the other hand, i am sure Equatorial Kundu has a large IT industry.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 10:25 AM

Long article, short message - Reporting victory does not make it so.

Score: 0