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?

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.