Advanced

If this were any other JTC1 Proposal, the OOXML Vote Would be Over Now

Posted by Andy_Updegrove on · 6 comments
ConsortiumInfo.org Standards Blog; By Andy Updegrove 		Mail this story
Print this story

Public announcements of how P members of ISO have voted on OOXML are now rolling in one at a time, and the trend thus far is meaningfully weighted towards "No with comments." If this was a month ago, that would already be enough to block approval. Here's why.

By my count, there are now four announced Yes votes, with comments, two abstentions, and seven public No with comments votes. Korea has reportedly voted no as well, and I expect at least Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom to announce "No with comments" today or tomorrow. There will be more no votes on the roster when the final results are announced in a day or two. But even if the 11 votes I know of now were the only votes, the vote would now have failed - but for the 11 countries that upgraded their status from Observer to Participating member status in the last few weeks. Without those extra 11 P countries, it would only require 10 votes to block OOXML from immediate approval. If most or all of those additional P members vote "yes" as expected, it will confirm suspicions that Microsoft has promoted extra votes in favor of OOXML not only within National Bodies, but within ISO itself.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Microsoft; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (6)

Aladdin_Sane ·
This starts to remind me of a presidential election.
tuxchick ·
But we want to know NOW!!!

;)
jacog ·
Still waiting for the official word. Argh, the suspenders are killing me. This delay in announcing it makes me think there are some last minute bribes going on. Unless I misunderstand the process.

Are the "no with comments" votes going to come bite the process in the butt?
Sander_Marechal ·
Yes, unless there's some backroom deals going on that we don't know about: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/92010/index.html

There are sufficient "no" votes to stop OOXML for now, which means that all comments submitted with those "no" votes need to be resolved by ECMA instead of simply glanced over and pushed aside. If there is even only one issue that's unresolvable then OOXML will have failed ISO alltogether. From the many issues I remember being posted to Grokdoc I'd say that there is plenty of things that could end up being unresolvable.
jacog ·
Well good. Regardless, I am not sure I really trust this process anymore. It seems too easy to monkey with it.
dinotrac ·
>Well good. Regardless, I am not sure I really trust this process anymore. It seems too easy to monkey with it.

The time not to trust the process is at the end.

Just because there is room for abuse, doesn't mean it turns out badly. Wait and see.

Lots of processes in human activity have checks and balances built in to correct problems inherent in the fact that human beings are ones to carry them out.

In the US, the President can veto any law passed by Congress, thus preventing it from taking effect. Congress, if enough members get together, can override the veto.

Somebody improperly convicted of a crime has the right to appeal.

None of these safety valves is perfect, but they can't be. The only way to eliminate bad outcomes is to eliminate the ability to reliably create good ones.



Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post