Did you get the info from a onkey, only monkeys and idiots refers countries and things as "bananas"

Never you listened to the expression "banana republic"?

If didn't, I suggest you to ask Microsoft for a complete list of them…

//A human.

PS: btw, I understand that with the excitement and passion of the moment, you wanted to write "monkey" instead of "onkey"…

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddzgv9cv_1gkb7rm

shows the original P countries that has "positively" approved DIS
29500… side by side with the other countries that didn't give a
blank check to it ( abstained or dissaproval ). This document excludes
the 11 NBs that changed suddenly and suspiciously his condition for O
to P members.

http://www.noooxml.org/ballotresults

Hassan

I guess this is Microsoft-speak for "we managed to buy various dictatorships and banana republics like Barbados, Fiji, Kazakhstan etc. around the world to vote yes"

This can be decomposed as follows :
- Original JTC1 P-Members: 30 ( 8 Yes, 14 No, 8 Abstain)
- Other ISO Member Bodies: 57 (43 Yes, 4 No, 10 Abstain)

I call "Original JTC1 P-Members" those registered as Participant Members at the end of the contradiction period. By definition, the 57 other voters were not Participants to the process until very recently…

Again, we clearly see from where the overwhelming support to OOXML is coming !

Luc Bollen

Amongst the 30 "original" JTC1 P-Members : 8 Yes, 14 No, 8 Abstain
Amongst the 11 "late-comers" JTC1 P-Members : 9 Yes, 1 No (Ecuador), 1 Abstain (Trinidad & Tobago)
Amongst the 15 "late-comers" SC34 P-Members : 12 Yes, 0 No, 3 Abstain (Chile, Finland, Trinidad & Tobago)

About a possible vote stuffing : I think that the figures speak for themselves.

Luc Bollen

It is written in the top of the page: "Our inside source…"

I guess he/she is anonymous and you will have to wait until wednesday where ISO will come with an offcial statement.

if 25% of P countries vote no the result is a fail even if 66% vote yes.

This is wrong. The 25% concerns the total number of "no" votes, the 2/3 majority is for "yes" votes from P-members only.
Andy Updegrove has a good blog post on the process, and I also summarized it in another thread here.

IDG News Service

Print
ISO votes to reject Microsoft's OOXML as standard

By Peter Sayer, IDG News Service

Microsoft has failed in its attempt to have its Office Open XML document format fast-tracked straight to the status of an international standard by the International Organization for Standardization.

The proposal must now be revised to take into account the negative comments made during the voting process.

Microsoft expects that a second vote early next year will result in approval, it said Tuesday.

A proposal must pass two voting hurdles in order to be approved as an ISO standard: it must win the support of two-thirds of voting national standards bodies that participated in work on the proposal, known as P-members, and also of three-quarters of all voting members.

OOXML failed on both counts, according to figures provided by Microsoft, and by other sources with knowledge of the voting process. ISO has not yet officially announced the results.

Microsoft could miss out on revenue from the lucrative government market if OOXML is also rejected next year. Some governments, worried that the need for access to electronic archives held in proprietary formats leaves them hostage to their software vendor, have mandated the use of document formats that comply with open international standards.

Others are considering such a move, which could put Microsoft at a double disadvantage to open source products such as OpenOffice.org, which not only store files natively in the standardized Open Document Format, but are free.

But what about countries such as Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan? Aren't they O-Members?

MK

I think FFII should counter this with a press release saying "Strong global opposition to Open XML as it hits trouble for the final phase of ISO standards process". This ugly spin should not be allowed to stand undisputed.

Also, the recent damage control strategy from Microsoft bloggers to say "we appreciate all the constructive comments" is just silly. Someone even said "I haven't seen too many of the comments yet, but those I have seen will probably not be too difficult to address". Unless the plan here is that "address" means "ignore", I definitely see a large number of fundamental comments that will be very difficult to accommodate, even among those submitted very early in the voting process.

Fifty-one ISO members voicing support at this
preliminary stage of the process compares favorably with the 32 ISO members
supporting Open Document Format (ODF) 1.0 at the end of its process and the
15 ISO members supporting PDF/A-1 at the end of its process.

That is definitely putting a good spin on a bad one. How many members voted when ODF and PDF was approved? With how many comments?

With 41 P members, 15 No would means a max of 26 Yes, which is still only 63%. Isn't the minimum number of P members needed 28?