The ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 34 Secretariat has published an informative guide to the rules for the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) . The “Convenor,” Alex Brown, has used his blog to clarify the procedures and supply additional supporting information. Dubbed the “Man with the Gavel,” Brown has the unenviable task of running a 35-hour meeting involving 120 participants and 1000+ comments (whittled down from 3,522).

One issue that has arisen is whether National Bodies (NBs) should only concern themselves with Ecma’s responses to their own country’s comments. In his latest blog entry titled Tracking OOXML Issues, Brown chooses not to deviate from the JTC 1 Directives in passing judgment on this question: 

As the JTC 1 Directives explicitly state, the reason why all NB comments are distributed is to allow all NBs to form an opinion on all of them:

Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs […] The NBs shall be requested to consider the comments and to form opinions on their acceptability. (13.6)

By extension, of course, NBs shall naturally be considering Ecma’s responses to these comments too. It is this considered national position that delegations will be taking to Geneva:

NBs […] shall appoint to the ballot resolution group one or more representatives who are well aware of the NB’s position. (13.7)

So, NBs need to do their homework so that delegations arriving at the BRM in Geneva are fully briefed. The delegation should ideally know their national position on all 1,000 or so distinct comment/responses that could be discussed. It is the responsibility of the delegation to faithfully represent their national position (not individual divergent delegate views), and to be prepared to respond to any fresh issues that arise in line with guidance their NB has given them.

I can understand why the “Man with the Gavel” wants to stick to the rules for what could be a difficult meeting to manage.  Beyond the rules, NBs should consider the comments of other NBs and form opinions on them.  After all, the new document that will likely be produced after the BRM will be significantly different from what was reviewed before September 2. Changes can be made for other NBs that affect the comments of your own NB, as well as modify the document in serious ways or raise new concerns for your NB.

Recall that Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) failed to achieve approval in the first round of balloting that ended September 2 2007. ISO fast-track procedures provide the submitter of a proposed standard, in this case Ecma, the opportunity to address the problems that national standards bodies (NBs) identified in the hope of persuading them to change their vote. Ecma’s Proposed Disposition of Comments was published on January 14, leaving precious little time for NBs before the Feb 25-29 Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). 

Consider the task ahead for any NB reconsidering its vote:
6,045 pages—the length of the OOXML specification
3,522 comments—the number of errors, ambiguities and omissions submitted by national standards bodies
2,293 pages—the length of Ecma’s proposed “fixes”

“Ecma’s Proposed Disposition of Comments on OOXML: How we got here; What is missing; Why you should vote no” will both lighten your reading load and explain just what is missing from the proposed “fixes”? Beyond the inadequacy of a six-week review period for over 1,000 changes (the total number of “fixes” proposed by Ecma) and the inappropriateness of the “fast-track” procedure (when normal procedures are available) for a specification of this magnitude, the proposal:

-Ignores the request from several countries and EU advisory bodies for harmonization between OOXML and the already ISO-approved ODF.

-Adds to the confusion between the trademarked name of OpenOffice (ODF’s first implementation) and the proposed standard, Office Open XML, or OOXML.

-Introduces new errors, inadequately addresses existing ones, and ignores many other errors altogether.

-Inhibits interoperability.

-Proposes contradictory solutions.

With just four weeks to go before the BRM, it is important for National Bodies to consider what has been “agreed” but not actually resolved; what has been “promised” but not actually delivered; and what has been left unaddressed altogether.

Marino Marcich
ODF Alliance