Finally, check that the first people that analyzed the specification, indeed when it was just MS-OOXML posted at ECMA committee, was the people of the OpenDocument Fellowship. Their work can be found in Groklaw and this work has served as a base for IBM and many others to make their comments.

Please, don't simplify: IBM has been only one more of the entities that have produced comments. Indeed they have produced only 200 comments and surely no more than 100 of them have entered in the votes (the other 100 came really late…)

The difference here is that the amount of comments is huge.

Allthough he total number might be huge the number of identical comments might be huge too. For instance IBM that produced most comments submitted a lot of similar comments in most of the committees they participated in.

So 10k comments might easily shrivle to 2k non-identical and even to a few hundred of really distiguishable comments.

Sorry for rant, but Microsoft actions gets my blood boiling.

It upsets me too, rather a lot actually, but please try to keep calm. You think a lot better when you are not angry, and we need to stay smart to have any chance against these large scale bullying tactics. Letting out steam in public feels good sometimes, I know, but it gets us nowhere. The bullies might be stronger, but I wouldn't bet they are smarter than us if we take care to really use our brains. If nothing else, at least we stand a good chance of outnumbering them, as those 42,000 names in the petition indicate. We are being bullied, yes, but we have a lot of honest and smart people on our side who are willing to stand up and take the fight. We are still in a fairly good position to defend ourselves and fight back, and this fight is far from hopeless.

The sheer volume of the document and its many serious problems could perhaps motivate a decision by the ISO secretariat to cancel the project now, but that would require them to stick out their neck in an unexpected manner. A decision to cancel a DIS is normally taken later by the sub-committee handling the ballot resolution process, in this case SC34. Furthermore, the project editor has said that ECMA and Microsoft will work with SC34 to try to resolve the comments in just a few months, and the ISO secretariat has no real authority to step in and cancel the project against the will of the appointed project editor. SC34 has that authority, but they haven't even started their work on the comments yet.

The ISO secretariat allowed DIS 29500 to be put on fast track in the first place. While this was clearly a mistake, we now have to see it through to the end in February. Formally, this is normal procedure. It's just that the draft standard being considered here is abnormal.

It's childish to criticize ISO and its processes to build standards. If it not trustworthy, why should ODF and many other specifications get ISO ratification?

Maybe because previous ballots (those on PDF, ODF, any standard you can think of except OOXML) were not surrounded by foul play, bribery, ballot stuffing and truckloads of misinformation from a rich and powerful software giant? Or don't you think that makes any difference at all?

And for @#$#@%^ what reason? WHAT in Microsoft is SO different than other Vendors who tries to screw up ISO system and are set back where they came from?

Ohh, they got lot of money for officials, right?

Sorry for rant, but Microsoft actions gets my blood boiling. And I even hoped that with OOXML they want start to change. How naive from me.

This is the same story as for the Fast Track decision in February.

The ISO process has been worked out before the ballot began. It's childish to cricticize ISO and it's processes to build standards. If it not trustworthy, why should ODF and many other specifications get ISO ratification?

It's better to save your time and resources to help developers out there to learn how to implement ODF and help users realize benefits from ODF via applications.

It is hard to change a "yes" to a "no", but given the false information given before the vote, many "yes" votes are actually "no" votes, i.e. conditional approvals cast in the shape of a "yes" because of Microsoft's influence. Let's keep pointing a finger to that influence, it should not be forgotten. Our sharpest weapon right now is to clearly expose the rotten methods of Microsoft, which show that there is something wrong with the standard. Otherwise, it would have passed on its own merits like any other standard.

One nice report is that the first NB to change its mind after the ballot was closed is Finland. Their official position is now "no", not "abstain". (Edit: this is unconfirmed, my only reference seems to have disappeared)

Comments that accompanied the votes will be discussed at a ballot resolution meeting (BRM) to be organized by the relevant subcommittee of ISO/IEC JTC 1 (SC 34, Document description and processing languages) in February 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland.

And also the objective of the meeting, which will be to try to find solutions to unsolvable problems, called OOXML poison pills, such as the French proposal:

The objective of the meeting will be to review and seek consensus on possible modifications to the document in light of the comments received along with the votes. If the proposed modifications are such that national bodies then wish to withdraw their negative votes, and the above acceptance criteria are then met, the standard may proceed to publication.

The work for us will be to reverse the decision of many Yes countries, and to support OOXML poison pills that Microsoft don't like, which is basically every amendment that create distance between Office 2007 and the proposed ISO29500. But beware, most of the Yes countries are already mostly controlled by the vendor and its business partners.