I’m hearing reports that people in national standards bodies are being told blatantly false information about what they can and cannot discuss during the current JTC1 Fast Track process for OOXML. They are being told things, to paraphrase, like “the contradiction period decided that such and such was ok” or “we can’t consider that problem with OOXML because it was already dealt with in the Contradiction Period.”
Both of these are completely FALSE.
If anything, the Fast Track period is to allow even more time to dive deeply into the many problems that have been identified with OOXML. Everything that was on the table during the Contradiction Period is also available for discussion now. If it was a problem then, it is a problem to be discussed now.
Also beware stalling and procedural tactics that are otherwise designed to limit discussion. If there is not enough time to fully flesh out all the issues with OOXML during the Fast Track process, then Fast Track is not appropriate. That should mean a NO vote to allow this spec to be either fixed or otherwise taken care of in the fullness of time.
If you fundamentally feel that that OOXML is redundant and should be converged with, an existing ISO standard, I think this also means a NO vote. A YES vote will significantly limit the motivation of the OOXML supporter(s) to make any substantive changes other than what suits their product interests.