OOXML Vote Breeds Uncertainty

By Greg McNevin

March 3, 2008: The latest chapter in the ongoing OpenDocument (ODF) and Office Open XML (OOXML) saga was written on Friday as an international standards delegation came together to vote on whether or not Microsoft’s format should be approved an ISO standard. The odd thing is, both sides have come out of the vote claiming victory.

In a blog posting on Friaday, Microsoft’s Office program manager Brian Jones claims that a consensus was reached at the five-day Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) in Geneva.

“The meeting closed with clapping and cheering, folks were really happy about the improved proposals for the specification and it was a very positive experience for me personally,” writes Jones.

“I'm deeply impressed by the thoughtful consideration and strong commitment shown by the NB delegates to improve this specification and I want to thank them all. It is clear that the process worked.”

However, according to advocates of the open source ODF such as Andrew Updegrove, the Linux Foundation’s director of standards strategy, only six of the 32 delegations attending the BRM voted to approve about 900 out of more than 1,100 dispositions (proposed changes). A further four voted against, four refused protesting lack of time for discussion and 18 abstained.

In his blog, Updegrove notes that the two diametric conclusions to come out of the BRM are:

• 98.4% of the OOXML Proposed Dispositions were approved by a three to two majority at the BRM, validating OOXML
• The OOXML Proposed Dispositions OOXML were overwhelmingly rejected by the delegations in attendance at the BRM, indicating the inability of OOXML to be adequately addressed within the "Fast Track" process

He says that “the latter position is the only supportable conclusion”, and believes it is likely that the support OOXML received in Geneva will evaporate over the month as delegates return home.

“Many, many, people around the world have tried very hard to make the OOXML adoption process work.  It is very unfortunate that they were put to this predictably unsuccessful result through the self-interest of a single vendor taking advantage of a permissive process that was never intended to be abused in this fashion,” writes Updegrove.

“It would be highly inappropriate to compound this error by approving a clearly unfinished specification in the voting period ahead.  To paraphrase a former First Lady, it's time to "Just say No" to OOXML.”

Comment on this story