I’ve mentioned before that whatever happens with the JTC1 ballot that closes on September 2, there will be a lengthy process that follows it before OOXML ever becomes an ISO/IEC standard, if that does come to pass.
What comes after September 2?
September 3, and the 4th, and so on.
That is, the sun will shine, the birds will sing, and life will go on.
It’s important for everyone involved to keep a sense that what we are seeing here is an important, but incremental, change in the way standards are understood and are created. The work will continue and people will do other and more varied activities. Some of them will even be furthering the work of producing ever more open standards. I think the number of such people will be significantly larger than it was even a year ago.
After the 2nd, whatever happens with OOXML will happen. It’s not the only specification that wants to be a standard, you know.
What I predict we will see will be widespread re-evaluation of national standards body membership and voting rules. I think we’ll witness a normalization of procedures and all have a better idea of the point of those procedures. That is, we want the creation of high quality standards and not just more standards. Quality is more important than quantity.
I also think that the very core ISO/IEC procedures will be examined and adjusted. People close to the process on all sides have a lot of important information on where the procedures work, where they don’t, where they are vague, where they are inconsistent, and where they allow unintended consequences.
If the international standards process gets better because of all this commotion around OOXML, that is great progress. If it does not improve and the problems are not addressed, then we’ve got a much bigger issue on our hands. Issues that may, in the not too distant future, affect the very credibility and importance of the international standards process itself. Having a chance to get high quality international standards created in better, more open, more transparent ways is simply not an opportunity we should let pass us by.
Also See: An “OOXML is a bad idea” blog entry compendium
It’s to do with the split between ‘public’ and ‘private’.
IBM, Microsoft, SUN, ATT — ‘private’. Trying to invest to make a profit and return the profit as cash to shareholders. At the moment, Google is running off with all the money (at least, whatever of it isn’t in China). None of us ‘traditional behemoths’ is coining it.
US Government, UK Government, MIT, Oxford University, Cambridge University, UC Berkeley, Massachussetts State Legislature — ‘public’. Whatever else they may be doing, ‘trying to make a profit’ does not come into it. No shareholders to pay. ‘Disseminating knowledge’, maybe.
These greenback things. The ones that say “Good for all debts, public and private”. It all has to do with the speed and direction of their flow.
Frustrating at times to the engineers and scientists. Such is progress.
Roll on September. Whatever ISO decide, there will still only be one implementation of ECMA-376. Standardisation will not bring more interoperability. I’ll wager the price of a cup of coffee on it.
Bob,
I’m not sure September 2nd is a hugely important date, other than it marking the end of DIS 29500 letter ballot. In practice, DIS 29500 will not become a full ISO standards status “as is” on that date unless it gains 100% positive approval (as ODF did). I think that is unlikely.
The standardisation process then moves into what I predict will turn out to be a much more meaningful phase, as the proposer (Ecma) strives to resolve all received comments in a way with will be to everybody’s satisfaction, ahead of the all-important Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM), at which DIS 29500’s fate will be eventually determined.
I have been trying to keep the description of this process as up-to-date as I can, on Wikpedia, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardization
I agree that after the dust has settled there will probably be scope to improve the process. And maybe some countries will want to look at their national decision-making too. In the UK, at least, there is a strong view that OOXML, like ODF before it, is simply unsuitable for a fast track procedure.
- Alex.
Chris, point taken, though things get murky around intellectual property. Stanford University made millions of dollars from its sale of Google stock, so universities are very much part of the consideration. Stanford is not alone here – look at biotech as well.
Alex, I think the entire Fast Track procedure should examined and discussed from top to bottom.
Bob do you regard ISO26300 as a “high quality standard” and could you share why, or why not?
Well, yes, but Stanford (presumably) reinvested their gains into improving education, for the benefit of all the population of California. It didn’t disappear into the pockets of any private individual for the purpose of buying a yacht and sailing around San Francisco and through the Golden Gate.
I don’t believe “commotion” is the right way to affect decisions at that level. However, if someone up above can see this and intervene, then you at least help in discrediting ECMA, ISO and the rest of the ‘production line’. Why should we resort to “commotion” and then be accused, e.g. of “inciting panic” (in the case of Rob)? If someone lobbies so aggressively and corrupts the enstire process, then care should be taken when pointing fingers.
Chris, I just want to point out that Stanford is a private university, not a public one. Although the school is in California, it draws from a much larger area.
Bob, thank you for the perspective. A number of writers have been on a doom and gloom kick recently. I have to say that it was never going to be easy to bring openness and restore balance in the market and industry. A little roughness here and there should be expected. After all, by keeping things closed, one company gained monopoly share. They will push back long and hard before they lose that, and openness is the thing they fear will cause them to lose it.
No monopolist ever voluntarily falls back into the pack and becomes an equal with its competitors. No state agency will voluntarily give up its premier customer position with an entrenched monopoly, either. It is when a real movement of consumers and *voters* demands changes that governments will change. Once they change, you’ll be surprised at just how many standards groups will decide that they’ve been a little too lax in the past.
Bob does your site handle trackbacks? I’ve blogged here http://notes2self.net/archive/2007/08/07/ibm-wondering-quot-what-comes-after-sept-2nd-quot.aspx with a few thoughts triggered by your post.
I don’t know if my earlier comment got lost (2:49pm – it says it’s still awaiting moderation) … I’d still be interested to know your thoughts on whether ISO26300 is a “high quality standard” and reasons why/why not.
Stephen, ODF? Yes, I do. I’m sure Rob Weir will be happy to discuss the technical merits of it with you, but I think he’ll assume you’ve read everything he’s already written about it.
The point of this and the last entry is that after September 2 I believe we need a thorough examination of the whole process from beginning to end. I mean, why not? I need to be understood and the rules needs to be clear, without loopholes for anyone.
Oh, and no, I do not have trackbacks turned on, I was getting too much spam.
ISO26300 is high-quality, because it represents a collaborative design from multiple interested parties, because there are multiple products from independent vendors which implement it, and because it’s credible that there will be more products which sit on top of it and do things with the documents other than ‘facilitate editing’ and ‘facilitate printing’. Indexing and information integration come to mind.
It’s not perfect, and in due course there will probably be revisions. The process for revision will be ‘collaborative design’, too.
In the ‘bad old days’, if you wanted to connect a device to a computer, you would need an IBM System/360 Channel Cable.
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/IBM/IBM.System_360.1964.102646081.pdf
It had dozens of wires, a specification which was IBM-proprietary, worked very well, had to be bought from IBM, and was rather expensive.
Nowadays, you use USB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB to do a broadly similar job. 4 wires, open standard, works pretty well, can be bought just about anywhere, and is dirt cheap.
Admittedly USB isn’t as lucrative for IBM as System/360 channels were; but for the rest of the industry (and for consumers) it’s much better.
History is that open standards eventually displace proprietary ones.
I assume that if you’re content that ISO26300:2006 meets your bar for a “high quality standard” then you’re happy with the process that delivered it (the PAS transposition process). This was a six month fast-track process too. So I’m guessing your comments are less about the fast track process and more about the DIS ballot period.
Personally I agree there are some things that could be usefully clarified here. ISO’s rules aren’t supposed to allow one group to symie or block another and up to now they’ve been able to assume, and have relied on, a level of good-faith interaction that may not be sustainable in the future.
In terms of governance, for example, I think it’s important to look and see whether the rules are designed to cope with a multi-national waging an aggressive campaign against the standardisation and participating in many of the national bodies.
To speak plainly Bob, I don’t think IBM is without fault here.As I’ve written on my blog, I’m genuinely interested in whether you see that too, or whether it’s just everyone else that’s out of synch.
Finally, thanks for the dialogue – it benefits all of us.
Stephen, thanks for taking the time to share your opinion. In terms of who is in sync or out of it, I think we might differ in our conclusion of what was being attempted by whom, for what reason, and by what use of the rules. Clearly a lot of people don’t agree with what Microsoft has tried to do here. Microsoft is a “multi-national,” last I checked.
To wrap this up, I’m happy to look at all aspects of the international standards process. If you go back and look at the post, I said
That was meant to be take the way I wrote it, without reference to any particular group.