NoOOXML

@zoobab

9.5 was in force for the September letter ballot (O-members voted, remember?)

- Alex.

At which date was the 3.0 version entered into force?

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf

Seems to mention the 5th April, or the 4th May, depends if ISO uses ISO compliant date formatting.

More funny about v3.0:

This version of the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, is dedicated to Mr. Jan van den Beld for his many years of service to JTC 1, specifically his unwavering dedication to the development and evolution of the JTC 1 procedures.

Mr Jan van den Beld was the guy in orange shirt who was doing pro-OOXML lobbying for CompTIA in the building in front of the Conference center.

He was also an ECMA guy before, so there is a link I don't want to make between "ECMA/Microsoft rewritting the ISO FastTrack rules" in purple.

13.8 At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a
vote is unavoidable the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures.
13.9 If, after the deliberations of this ballot resolution group, the requirements of 9.6 are met, the Project
Editor shall prepare the revised DIS (or DAM) and send it to the SC Secretariat who shall forward it to the
ITTF for publication as an IS. For its initial publication, the document is not required to be in ISO/IEC
format, but can be published in the format of the submitting organization.
13.10 If it is impossible to agree to a text meeting the above requirements, the proposal has failed and
the procedure is terminated.

9.6 FDIS/DIS/FDAM/DAM/FDISP Approval Criteria
For a FDIS/DIS/FDAM/DAM/FDISP to be approved, the count taken by ITTF shall meet the following criteria:
• At least two-thirds of the P-members voting shall have approved;
• Not more than one-quarter of the total number of votes cast are negative.
A P-member which has given appropriate notification that it will abstain from participation in specific work items
(see 3.1.2) shall not be counted as a P-member when counting votes for drafts relating to such items.
Abstentions are excluded from the count.

It seems to me the "normal JTC1 procedure" is indeed 9.1, not 9.5 which applies to letter ballots.

I wonder where Alex Brown got the information from how to interpret the ISO/IEC directives from but I hope his legal interpretation can be tested in a Swiss court. If the BRM vote is invalid for "procedural reasons" it would be a gentlemen termination of the Microsoft DIS.

Member bodies should file a formal complaint, there must be a dispute resolution mechanism within ISO.

@Zoobab: Jan van Beld - please also note the total rewrite of the fast-track procedure in 13 and the wording:

13.1 Any P-member of JTC 1 or organisation in Category A liaison with JTC 1 (the proposer) may propose that a) an existing standard from any source be submitted without modification directly for vote as a DIS;

*lol*

The dedication seems to carry an ironical tone:

This version of the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, is dedicated to Mr. Jan van den Beld for his many years of service to JTC 1, specifically his unwavering dedication to the development and evolution of the JTC 1 procedures.

Who would expect British humour in an ISO directive?

@podmokle

9.1 applies to committee (and sub-committee etc) voting; the BRM is _not_ a committee. It is an assemblage of dfferent NBs who participate in many different committees (a consequence of the combined voting of 9.5).

- Alex.

Alex, please accept my sympathy for your difficult situation right now.

Now that this debate on procedure is public, I think it would be time well spent for you to explain to people why and how this was indeed in accordance with ISO directives. If there are previous cases of BRM votes where similar procedure was followed, let people know and that would be it. Otherwise just give some more details on what this is all about, particularly for those who mix up the BRM vote with a formal DIS ballot. I think this unfamiliar amount of public insight into and interest in ISO internal procedure also motivates some official ISO statement regarding procedure, not only from you as the convenor.

Uncertainty and doubt is spreading. Both are easily cured with information. I know this is an inconvenient and unwanted hassle for you, but please consider spending some more time on explaining to the general public - misinformed people can do a lot of unnecessary damage.

@Alex

Letter ballots are explained here:

9.1.5 For votes by correspondence (letter ballots) in JTC 1 and its SCs, except as specified elsewhere in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval. Letter ballots may be cast by web based balloting, e-mail, facsimile or, if absolutely necessary, by mail. Due account shall be taken of minority views.

If the combined letter ballot was sent by web based balloting, e-mail, facsimile or, if absolutely necessary, by mail, I did not heard there was such things happening at the BRM.

@ Alex: you wrote

9.1 applies to committee (and sub-committee etc) voting; the BRM is _not_ a committee. It is an assemblage of dfferent NBs who participate in many different committees (a consequence of the combined voting of 9.5).

but the provision 9.1.4 does not speak of committees:

In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval.

1. Do you question that the BRM is a ballot resolution meeting?
2. "except as otherwise specified in these directives" indicates that its the usual procedure.

So let me clarify about the larger context:

9 Voting
9.1 General

Nothing in section 9 says that these rules apply only to committees. In fact the general procedures for meetings are explained.

@stegu

Thank you for your sympathy. Happily since I have no interest in the outcome of this process, I can look on with detachment.

Whatever is written I suspect there will always be a large constituency (ha!) not satisfied. The relevant JTC 1 voting rules were communicated to Heads of Delegation before the BRM began; they were applied; ISO and IEC have stated the meeting was orderly. If NBs have concerns, mechanisms exist for them to seek redress.

@zoobab

Yes. A letter ballot happened on 2 September. Ballot resolution is for resolving what happened in it.

- Alex.

@podmokle

provision 9.1.4 does not speak of committees

By mentioning "P-members" it does implicitly, since an NB can only be a "P-Member" of a committee. There is no such thing as a "P-Member" of the BRM (unless we start devising ways to differentiate between JTC 1, SC 34, and other P-Members for these purposes — and making rules up on the fly is a very bad thing, right?)

- Alex.

By mentioning "P-members" it does implicitly, since an NB can only be a "P-Member" of a committee. There is no such thing as a "P-Member" of the BRM (unless we start devising ways to differentiate between JTC 1, SC 34, and other P-Members for these purposes — and making rules up on the fly is a very bad thing, right?)

…unless the BRM does indeed differentiate between p-members and o-members as the september ballot vote did that was to be resolved by the BRM, right ;-)

I still do not get why then letter ballot voting rules should apply.

So how does dispute resolution over the ISO/IEC directive work within ISO or beyond? Is there a procedure?

@podmokle

We arrive at the nub. The September letter ballot was a JTC 1 ballot, so no problem deciding what "P-Members" means there.

The meeting (which is not a committee meeting) is however is hosted by SC 34 (not JTC 1) … so who do you pick as your "P-Members" now? and on what basis? (what about P-Members of other SCs, too; countries may be O-Members and P-Members in different committees?)

- Alex.

Very simple. The members that voted in the Sept ballot (JTC1) were obliged to participate under certain circumstances in the BRM. SC34 may "host" the meeting.

I am very curious how ISO will determine what bodies may vote as a P member on the BRM outcome. SC34 P's or JTC1 P's or maybe another committee. You never know. ;-)

@podmokle

That's very simple, as the ultimate decision (on the DIS) is a continuation of the September 2 ballot - voters and their statuses are all fixed.

- Alex.

So is the BRM composition determined by the September ballot? E.g. without Sweden.

Alex, so this is your own document:
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm

6.6 Who are “P” members for the purposes of voting?
In all voting on the DIS 29500 fast track, “P-members” means P-members of JTC 1 (who voted as such in the 2 September ballot), not P-members of SC 34 or any other ISO/IEC committees.

So you presented a strawman here.

@Alex: thanks for making the effort to explain the ISO procedural rules to us, and good to hear that you are not taking things personal.

Yes. A letter ballot happened on 2 September. Ballot resolution is for resolving what happened in it.

That short statement suddenly made things a lot more clear to me. Thanks!

Now, about the only thing that strikes me as odd is that there was not an option presented to the delegates to explicitly fail the BRM and to terminate DIS29500 based on its inappropriateness for fast track. I have a hard time understanding why it would be in the interest of ISO to arrive at a slightly brushed-up text when it is so obvious that it needs a lot more work, and that the voting process has been interfered with in various ways all over the world.

I thought ECMA's class 1 liaison with ISO was supposed to be a favor to ECMA under an obligation to submit high quality and well prepared standards? The process so far looks more like ISO is hostage to ECMA because of its class 1 status, and that worries me. What would it take for ISO to actually disqualify a DIS from further fast track processing? If there is no way to discourage ECMA and others from submitting bad drafts like this to fast track in the future, I think ISO is in a very difficult situation. Going from a general rule of consensus based on mutual interest to a habit of getting unilaterally defined single-vendor standards through with a calculated and, let's face it, partly bought-off majority vote, would be fatal to ISO:s reputation.

Keep in mind that afaik the EU is another Class A affiliate. And the Commission is investigating the case. I would like to get to know the formal procedure how to downgrade an institution as ECMA.

The argument by analogy as its not the PAS process…

Other question: has the BRM the mandate to decide on its own rules?