NoOOXML

All that universities have not come up with their own office document format.
the suggested format for fasttracking is an industry product mainly for use by the software industry.
I think the ISO natinal bodies are well aware that the fasttrakcing procedure is not for creating ideal standards but for standardising existing technologies rapidly for fast marketadoption.

Universties have little standing in it features in that way as you suggest. if the industry suggested formats do not provide their needs they have the capabilities to develop a standard from the ground up like other ISO developed standards regularly are.

This fasttracked standard is however is not such a ground up creation of a format. You consider a fasttracking standard like it is something to be developed but fasttracking is a lot more about fast adopting and improving something that is already developed.

http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/three_misconceptions_about_iso.html
And I have here an ISO long term strategy paper from 1999 lying around (not coincidentally) which describes ISO extending iso services in this way:

ISO will undertake to define, enhance and promote flexible
mechanisms and procedures by which ISO can:

• directly assist supplier and user groups (e.g. industry consortia)

whose purpose is to define urgent and future needs for International
Standards in specific sectors, and/or to formulate and test
alternative solutions for such needs

This exactly show why ISO fasttracking is not created for extensive review and making ideal specifications. ISO wants to more support industry adoption of its standards by standardizing standards that are wanted by industry consortia and not just by governments and official government organs. So for a fasttracking standard it is actually preferred that industry representatives endorse the standard.
Mayby that is something that for somethng working at a university is a very irregular idea of creating the standard. That is the way of slow creating of clear consensus standard definitions ad creating more optimal standard.
However that is not ISO's intention for fasttracking. Quickly standardize industry originating standards that will be likely to be adapted quickly as well.

Can somebody please adjust the quoted text so that the last two lines also follow the indented text

So, are you saying that ISO fast tracking should always promote a standard coming from industry, regardless of how bad and broken it is, and not dare to make any judgments regarding its quality, nor try to fix it in the ballot resolution process? Just stamp it with "ISO approved" and shut up? That is quite an extreme point of view indeed. I wonder if ISO agrees with that one.

All that universities have not come up with their own office document format.

So, to have an informed opinion on a document format standard, you need to have defined your own? Or what are you implying? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this has any bearing on the issue at hand. My opinion is that nobody in their right mind should define their own office document format, instead we need to agree on one standard. That, I think, is the very purpose of standards.

I have been quite happy with the introduction and ISO adoption of ODF as a good example of what XML can do to promote interoperability, healthy competition and open source initiatives. I have seen no need to define an alternative for the same purpose, but I can clearly see some very grave errors in OOXML. I am not a developer, but I do know quite a lot about XML and document markup, and I am one of the people who are supposed to teach students good practice when defining XML schemas,
and to teach them to adhere to standards when they create software solutions in the near future. The OOXML standard and the controversy around it drags everything I value about XML and open, international standards in the dirt and stomps on it. That is my reason to oppose it.

So, are you saying that ISO fast tracking should always promote a
standard coming from industry, regardless of how bad and broken
it is, and not dare to make any judgments regarding its quality,
nor try to fix it in the ballot resolution process?

No. It should certainly be checked for quality. And it is certainly good a lot of items are being found that will improve qualitiy.
However a lot of the more loud critisism is not for quality but for it's features and/or goals.
The features for instance created for legacy compatibility with the current Office document base.

• People shouting that legacy compatibility should not be in an ISO standard completly lost the point that ISO wants to make with fasttracking.
• People suggesting that other ISO standards must be reused are of the boil as that is also not what fastracking is about.

The features for instance created for legacy compatibility with the current Office document base.

Well, that argument is completely flawed but it is central to their case to advocate for a second standard for the same purpose. So they say: Our format's purpose is different. Or multiple standards are fine, a running gag in the Offices. A compatibility with a single vendors product line has to be interpreted as an infringement of the WTO TBT agreement pursuant to which a standard shall not get adopted.

• People shouting that legacy compatibility should not be in an ISO standard completly lost the point that ISO wants to make with fasttracking.

ISO implements the WTO TBT.

• People suggesting that other ISO standards must be reused are of the boil as that is also not what fastracking is about.

Exactly, if ECMA prepared the standard sufficiently it should not be in there. But ECMA presented garbage and fast-tracked it. No problem with fast-track, just the wrong procedure. The British were right, there should not be fast-track in the first place. FFII advocated for the same. Now we have an immature standard fast-tracked.