could you please summarize your knowledge about these corrupt folks on one page ?
I'm currently collecting ideas how to move against these people.
Also I'm planning an wide boycott initiative against ISO and DIN and an initiative for an
new German standarization organisation.

If you're interested in this, please let me know: ed.xutem|tlegiew#ed.xutem|tlegiew

cu

The Microsoft Empower Program is really little more than buying some cheap software- to be honest it's little different from having an MSDN subscription.

I co-authored a book with Inigo on XML a few years back and I don't remember him being particularly Microsoft centric- I've not got a copy of our book here (all at my office) but I'm pretty sure I wrote all the Microsoft centric chapters.

The Microsoft Empower programme is a programme in which small software companies can pay a couple of hundred pounds to Microsoft to get multiple licenses to MS products such as Windows, Visual Studio, Office and MSDN. It's a way of saving money, and doesn't imply any sort of close business relationship. In any case, I express my opinions independently of my company.

My previous articles about OOXML are at http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-validation-and-technical-review.xml and http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-brm.xml.

Inigo

You saw it with my reporting about the Polish recommendation which was in fact just a loss in translation. I am sure that the secrecy of the UK process indeed guarantees that it cannot be easily hijacked. If the voting process was secret it would be far more difficult to buy votes inside the national committees.

Microsoft partners know very well that a prolongation of the ISO process would commercially play in their hands.

Inigo Surguy, the 67 Bricks Chief Technologist, was appointed Principal UK Expert in Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) document format by the British Standards Institute technical committee responsible for British and international XML standards.

67Bricks is part of the Microsoft Empower programme.

Surguy has voted for OOXML at the latest BSI Technical Committee, according to leaks.

How many bricks for 67 Bricks?

The format of Office 07 is not fully identical with ECMA-376.

Right now there is no 100% implementation. To insist on that would be confusing and the real question is if the changes made in the standard process are respected by those who develop the application. Here we have promises that future versions of Office (such as Office 08/Mac) would be made compatible with a potential ISO 29500.

The release delay is just an expression of the usual business practice.

You are eg. a p member of the JTC1 committee The p and O votes matter for the vote.
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html

"Old Guard" NB's appear to be those like Canada, France, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Ireland, China or Norway that voted against OOXML. The new blood presumably are countries like Cote d'Ivoire, Syria, Kazakhstan and Tanzania that are participating in JTC1 for the first time, and voting in favor of OOXML.

—-

The way National Standards bodies decide on the spec is regulated depending on national rules. In most nations the national committee members vote. Some nations don't even have real committees. Here again commitee stuffing is possible among others. Mysterious was e.g. the Cubanian vote where Cuba actually submitted an approval vote although the decision was disapproval.

—-

"I have also read that fast-tracking was created by the ECMA specifically to help Microsoft push OOXML through the ISO - and it is not used for anything else."

No. Fast-track is for rubberstamping an existing standard as an ISO standard. E.g you have a national standard and want to upgrade it as an ISO standard. Also A liaision partners as ECMA can submit standards. The premise is of course that they submit good work. ECMA at the BRM was represented by Brian Jones (OOXML Microsoft) and J. Paoli (Microsoft). The editor of the standard, Rex Jaeschke has also strong Microsoft affiliations. And Jan van den Belt who retired as a Ecma Gen Sec now works for Microsoft's lobby outfit compTIA. True is, that Jan van den Belt contributed to the development of fast-track procedures that underwent another revision just when OOXML was introduced. The parts that were changed in the latest revision are relevant and do indeed weaken the fast-track process.

—-

complaints are of course possible and will follow.

—-

Who gets to vote? As I understand it, only the 157 member bodies get to vote. These are call "P" members or participating national bodies, correct? But, I seem to remember reading something about P-members coming out of the woodwork just to support Microsoft on the OOXML standard, and that these P-members are all Microsoft partners. How can this be?

What is the significance of the ECMA? I have read that the ECMA was actually created by Microsoft, for Microsoft, and is composed of Microsoft partners. Why would ISO recognize such a committee, and why don't Microsoft competitors contest the existence of such an obvious self-serving organization? What sort of clout does the ECMA have?

What are the standards for "fast-tracking?" I have read that fast-tracking is used to speed the processing of standards that are essentially uncontested. I have also read that fast-tracking was created by the ECMA specifically to help Microsoft push OOXML through the ISO - and it is not used for anything else.

Is there any clear evidence of Microsoft bribery, or ballot-stuffing, or otherwise breaking the rules, or corrupting the process? For example, I remember reading something about Microsoft bribing some official in Sweden.

I have about an incident where those who might not support the OOXML standard where not allowed to vote because there where not enough chairs, or the room was full, or something. If this did happen, then that is clearly not fair. Can anybody file a complaint? Or does Microsoft control everything?

I have found other people talking about the implementation of OOXML on other platforms:
Microsoft Pushes Back Launch Date For Office 2008 For Mac Software
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201202566

But I could not find specific issues reported. Like on the Mac, the bullet list is stored this way, on Windows it is stored this other way. Or differences in interpreting the colour markings.

(full article requires paid subscription)

There are discussions at Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071206131310362 and Slashdot http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/2129203 on this news.

However, note that of NB chairs that have the password, some are not making the comments available, not even their own committee members. I've heard from a few NB members who explicity requested access to these documents but were denied. Many others were simply unaware that these comment responses were even available. This information is simply not getting out.

More about the difficulties to getthe info (and a comparison with the ODF process) on
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/662-resolutions-but-only-if-you-can.html

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1921

This piece is supposed to be the first in a series analyzing the BRM process in detail.

"Microsoft has frequently imposed non-interoperability; now, for example, it promotes the patented bogus "standard" OOXML instead of supporting Open Document Format. Microsoft believes it is so powerful that it can design an incompatible format, create obstacles to its implementation by others, and pressure most users to switch to it. Do you think users are really as foolish as Microsoft predicts?"

The country is also due to choose its own ISO standarts and determine
whether OpenXML and Open DOCUMENT are appropriate for an ISO standart.

Frédéric Bon is the chairman of the commission in charge of OpenXML
standart. However, he is also CEO of CLEVER AGE, a French company due to
develop the OpenDocument connector for Office 2007. CLEVER AGE obviously
knows what they're talking about, but Mr Bon is employed by Microsoft
and that raises the question of partiality

This commission also welcomes representatives of free softwares like
APRIL (Parisian LUG) or AFUL (French LUG), yet AFNOR has imposed such a
weight of secret that debates lack transparency.

It is true that AFNOR has agreed to invite these associations but only
as a foil. Debates are hold without their argumens taken into account.

All reports are either wrong or don't take into account the positions
against OpenXML. There's always a good reason to reject them. Government
officials who take part in the debates have no precise instructions from
their minister and don't dare to side for or against the project.

The commission seems to have already made its mind.They also act as if
the details stopping OpenXML to be qualified were to be erased.
A decision will be made at the end of August but the die seems already
cast. Microsoft lobbying will eventually succeed if this commission has
no transparency.

http://www.afnor.org/portail.asp

http://epweb.afnor.org/servlet/ServletListeEP?form_name=FormIdentification&IdEp=24968
http://epweb.afnor.org/servlet/ServletListeEP?form_name=ListEpParGpn&id_gpn=16&champtri=date_cloture&ordretri=asc

In French :

http://linuxfr.org/2007/07/07/22709.html

Dans le cadre du projet de normalisation à l'ISO du format OOXML (ECMA 376 Office Open XML) l'AFNOR a créé dernièrement une commission de normalisation nationale qui est la structure miroir du comité international responsable pour le projet. La commission française aura entre autres comme objectif de traiter les commentaires que l'AFNOR recevra sur l'enquête probatoire nationale qu'elle vient de lancer sur ce projet. Il est important de commenter cette enquête publique dont la date de clôture est le 31 juillet 2007.

Par ailleurs, l'AFNOR a également lancé en parallèle une enquête probatoire nationale sur le format ODF, format XML normalisé par l'ISO, en 2006.

Pour rappel, l'étude d'OOXML se fait via la procédure de «Fast track».

La date limite pour que la France, via l'AFNOR, donne sa position concernant le projet de normalisation d'OOXML est le 2 septembre 2007. Il reste à noter que l'ambiance des travaux de la commission n'est pas très bonne. L'APRIL et quelques autres acteurs ressentent une certaine partialité de la part de l'AFNOR. Le choix du président de la commission, imposé par l'AFNOR., Frédéric Bon (PDG de Cleverage) n'est pas neutre. Clever Age est en effet, avec Microsoft, la seule société à avoir un intérêt direct à l'existence de deux normes (cette société tente de développer en effet un convertisseur entre les deux formats). Microsoft essaye, sans surprise, de repousser les objections et de diluer leurs effets