Slashdot Log In
Possible Manipulation of OOXML Process In Poland
Posted by
kdawson
on Friday March 28, @08:55AM
from the politicizing-the-technical dept.
from the politicizing-the-technical dept.
michuk writes "IBM's representative for KT182 (the committee empowered to vote on OOXML in Poland) accused the committee's chair of intentionally manipulating the process. A letter from the president of the body overseeing KT182, sent a month ago to the committee chair for distribution to all committee members, was never distributed. The letter recommended that, if consensus were not achieved on the OOXML vote, then Poland should abstain. This follows up my recent report on the OOXML process in Poland (also covered by Groklaw), it looks like things are going bad this time, at least as bad as in October." The EU is already investigating the Polish process based on complaints last fall. Is anyone tracking all of the allegations and investigations surrounding OOXML?
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Microsoft Under Third EU Investigation for OOXML 194 comments
The Wall Street Journal and Information Week reported this morning that EU regulators have announced a third investigation into Microsoft's conduct on the desktop. This latest action demonstrates that while the EU has settled the case against Microsoft that ran for almost a decade, it remains as suspicious as ever regarding the software vendor's conduct, notwithstanding Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years. The news can be found in a story reported by Charles Forelle bylined in Brussells this morning. According to the Journal, the investigation will focus on whether Microsoft 'violated antitrust laws during a struggle last year to ratify its Office
software file format as an international standard.' The article also says that the regulators are 'stepping up scrutiny of the issue.'
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Same in Germany (Score:5, Interesting)
Heise reports that the vote process in Germany was manipulated, too, although on a more obvious level:
link [heise.de] (German only, sorry)
The members of the German institute for norms (DIN) were basically unable to vote "no", only "yes" and "abstain" were allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Translation: http://tinyurl.com/2olcx4 [tinyurl.com]
Re:Same in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to being unable to vote "no", some people changed their vote under pressure from "abstain" to "abstain to the DIN vote".
This way, the final DIN vote resulted in a "yes".
OOXML - OpenOffice XML? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wanted: standardization decision-making standard (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this kind of accusations is the lack of clearly-defined norms regarding how the process is supposed to be run.
Unbiased observers exist only as a theoretical approximation, not in practice, anyway. The next problem is that it is quite natural for any chairperson to see one side as the aggressior and the other side as the victim, based upon which it is quite natural for just about every decent-minded person to want to help the victim. The problem in this conflict is that both sides are making arguments to show themselves as the victim, while very few people are have the skills and knowledge to determine on the basis of objective moral criteria (which are relevant in this complex situation involving technology as well as economics), so that for most people it will again depends on their bias whom they will see as the aggressor and whom they will see as the victim.
The only way out is to have more formalized, standardized processes for dealing with conflict situations so that the chairpersons don't have vast amounts of power to interpret the rules to favor the outcome which they personally think is right.
The UK appears to be voting 'yes' (Score:5, Interesting)
I sent the following yesterday to:
Mike Low <mike.low@bsi-global.com>
Jean Stride <Jean.stride@bsigroup.com
Adrian Stokes <Adrian.Stokes@cat-ltd.demon.co.uk>
I have not received a reply.
UKUUG is seeking a member who will represent them on the tech advisory committee as our current rep no longer has the time.
**** email sent ****
I am writing is my capacity as Chairman of the UKUUG [ukuug.org] (UK's Unix & Open Systems User Group).
I was appalled to hear it rumoured that the BSI is intending to approve the fast tracking of the
Microsoft sponsored OOXML format (DIS29500) while there are still so many outstanding questions
about the draft standard. In this letter I make no comment about the long term suitability
of OOXML as an ISO standard, my main issue today is that fast tracking it is wrong.
An ISO standard should be well defined and capable of multiple independent implementations.
The whole point is to allow users of the standard to have products from different vendors
work together just as well as a product from a single vendor. If an ISO standard is
insufficiently precise to allow this then the reputation of ISO as a standards setting
body will suffer severely; with a consequential effect on International trade.
With this in mind, if BSI approves the fast tracking of OOXML it will do severe damage
users' confidence in standards in general and to the reputations of those organisations
who have approved this broken standard: BSI and ISO.
Technical people will regard standards less highly leading to a long term
erosion of use of standards. Do you personally want to be responsible for this ?
I thought that BSI meetings were open, but now find that they are secret. I find this
astounding, it makes me wonder what really happens in those meetings. Will you publish
unedited minutes and allow independent observers in the future ?
The last time that this was aired in public, I remember a BSI member commenting that the number
of comments about this was unprecedented. This shows that there is a great public interest
in this issue and that fast tracking would not meet public approval; people will wonder
who you represent and whose interests you serve.
On the standard itself: I am aware that some of the problems have been addressed, but that
there are large numbers of other ones that are still contentious. There are many parts
that are not properly defined. For these reasons OOXML is not fit for purpose as it stands.
It is possible that these problems may be fixed by the standard being fully discussed,
IE the fast tracking is not appropriate for OOXML.
I call on BSI to act in the interests of the UK public and say 'No to fast tracking of OOXML'.
If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Poland? Just the regular chaos (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, come on. Don't take them seriously. The person responsible for distributing the e-mails will be sacked (just in a few months).
Re:Poland? Just the regular chaos (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, politics in Poland are more than just a little fucked up. Same as usual.
delegate from Brazil discloses BRM (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080328090328998 [groklaw.net]
"Jomar Silva, a delegate from Brazil, which voted No, has now done what he said he would do and has posted what he saw and heard at the BRM. It is a deeply shocking tale of maneuvering the delegates to vote against their will by presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice of options, all designed, according to what I gather from his account, to get a positive result for Microsoft."
Why didn't OpenOffice sue? (Score:4, Insightful)
No danger of confusing similarity (Score:5, Funny)
No one with a good understanding of the situation could EVER mistake OOXML for EITHER a high-quality format OR an open format. See, it's quite elementary!
List of irregularities on NoOOXML.org (Score:5, Informative)
grrrr. (Score:5, Interesting)
in the meantime it risks destroying the credibilty of a mahor standard body (to further the commercial aims of one company).
and, of course, it reduces the possible impact of a simpler, superior standard (to further the commercial aims of one company).
the more I read about this the madder I become.
there is an old saying if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck. the simplest explanation in all cases points beck to some seriously disturbing manipulation by one particular company - and the brazen bare faced manor in which it is done is simply breathtaking. sure there is nothing *illegal* in padding up membership of committees to get the votes that you want - but by any measure it is underhanded and a dirty tactic.
money buys the world - and ISO (Score:5, Insightful)
It is obvious that the whole process has been abused. If ISO were still capable of reasonable action, they would halt the entire process and conduct a thorough investigation before continuing.
Alas, as ISO is a comittee-driven organization, and too many of the comittee members have been bought, excuse me "convinced", to be a little more microsoft-friendly, that won't happen.
Others manipulation (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103 [groklaw.net]
1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940 [groklaw.net]
2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda [noooxml.org]
3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro [noooxml.org]
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania [noooxml.org]
4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682 [groklaw.net]
5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437 [groklaw.net]
6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners [noooxml.org]
7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed [noooxml.org]
8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners [noooxml.org]
9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154 [groklaw.net]
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din [noooxml.org]
10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)
11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being made a standard when ODF exists already, and she believes duplicative standards conflict with WTO rules
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327170359776 [groklaw.net]
Big MS Victory Already (Score:5, Insightful)
Either, they get OOXML force-fed to us all, damaging ODF.
Or, their methods will corrupt and destroy faith in the standards process itself. Now ask yourself what one important backbone of Free Software is. That's right - standards. Interoperability is why Free Software can work with each other and we can build global systems out of it.
So, in either case, MS has successfully damaged an important asset of those they consider their enemies. They can't lose.
Re:Big MS Victory Already (Score:5, Insightful)
This overt criminal behaviour will force regulators to come down hard on M$ where and when ever they can.
It also makes it impossible for governments or government departments to recommend M$ software with out being also being seen as corrupt.
Yet again M$ is doing more damage to itself then FOSS ever could.
Re:Big MS Victory Already (Score:5, Interesting)
I have already vowed to never use Vista (XP is the last MS OS for me). But this has pushed me over the edge. I have a few Windows programs that I really enjoy using that don't work in Wine, but I don't care any more. MS will not only never get another cent of my money but I am going to purge them completely from my life. Over the next few weeks I am going to remove XP from my computer (100% *nix now), never use the Office suite (Open Office and IMAP), and look for opportunities to inform others about their choice in OS and software.
I'm not alone either. As I've been tracking this I've been politely forwarding information to friends and family, several of which have started expressing interest in using *nix or other MS alternatives. My wife, who runs her own business, has now stated that as soon as professional Adobe products are ever available on *nix platforms then she will remove MS as well (she already chooses Thunderbird/Lightning) over Outlook. My children are more familiar with a *nix system than they are Windows system (my son loves the Tux suite of games as well as Gcompris).
My efforts are just a drop in the sea, but my immediate friends and family are now at least are aware of the choice they have. And I think that this realization of choice is what MS fears the most.
Re:Big MS Victory Already (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that Microsoft has miscalculated. I am sure they developed their strategy a long time ago when they decided to embark upon this misadventure with OOXML. At that time, "standards" was a pretty obscure and esoteric topic that few people besides the experts ever considered. Of course they must have calculated that they may upset a few people in the regular course of things, but I am sure they never predicted the scrutiny by hundreds of thousands of non-experts the world over as they are receiving now. Who would have?
Corporations, even evil ones, are very conscious of public perception. Why else would they spend millions of dollars on public relations? Make no doubt about it - Microsoft must be very concerned right now about how this has turned out, in regards to the negative publicity and ill will it has garnered. It will be a hollow, Pyhrric victory for them if OOXML gains ISO status.
I have no doubt they may have even factored the cost of potential fines from the EU. What's another billion dollar fine when the stakes of the game for Microsoft are so much higher than that? However, I bet they never figured on the massive outrage that they have generated. That can not be so easily fixed by simply paying a fine and being done with it. On top of their misfortunes with Vista and a pending class action suite and the bad publicity that will bring, they must be very concerned. There is no telling where all this bad karma will lead them. Such uncertainties are very bad for business. Microsoft miscalculated when they embarked on the "Vista Ready" program, and they miscalculated when they embarked up the OOXML campaign. Their leadership is floundering. With threatening technological changes on the horizon like growing storm clouds, they are in navigating in troubled waters without a moral compass to guide them.
Don't defend MS here (Score:5, Informative)
MS uses their own DrawingML instead of SVG, their MS Math instead MathML, Dark Blue is coded as 000080 and not 00008B (SVG and ISO), MS country codes instead of ISO country codes, etc. Some of them are documented; some are not. However none of them are approved standards themselves. This means that in order to use OOXML completely, software must use MS standards. For things like DarkBlue and country codes, this is plain silly. Why should everyone in the world conform to uses MS standards when the ISO standard already exists.
Also using MS standards excludes any platform/software MS chooses to exclude including Linux, OS X, BSD, etc. For example the recommended format for DrawingML is Windows Meta File(WMF) which is Windows only and there are no plans to port it to another format or platform.
Besides being anti-competitive, the use of undocumented MS standards can be dangerous. For example, OOXML uses MS hashing and cryptographic functions which are not documented or approved or tested. Are these functions safe and effective? No one but MS knows. Again, there is an existing ISO standard on hashing and cryptographic functions.
OOXML uses units like English Metric Units (EMU) and "twips" (twentieths of a point). While somewhat defined, neither of them conform to any country's known units of measurements. Also in OOXML, different parts uses different units without any explanation. For example, some parts use twips while some parts are defined in points, half points, pixels, etc.
Many parts of the specification have undefined terms like the style "basicThinLine" (1 pt line?) and "plainText" (ASCII, UTF8?) . If software wanted to render a basicThinLine or use plainText, it would be up to interpretation to what that meant.
XML should be human readable but OOXML is littered with abbreviated, unclear element names like scrgbClr, algn, blurRad, dir, dist, rotWithShape.
Many parts of OOXML are written from a Western viewpoint of languages and customs with little consideration of other cultures. There are numerous examples where OOXML does not support Unicode which means only Latin based languages can fully implement OOXML. This affects all non-Latin based alphabets: Cyrillic (Russian, Belarussian, Ukranian), Middle Eastern (Arabic, Farsi), Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean),etc. For example, OOXML does not support RFC 3987 which means no Chinese characters in web addresses. Some functions are Western only: Networkdays() returns Saturday and Sunday as weekends which is true for the US but not Muslim countries.
autoSpaceLikeWord95, footnoteLayoutLikeWW8,mwSmallCaps, etc. Most of these are not documented. Even if they were, they require emulation of a MS product. That unfortunately brings MS patents. If another software emulated autoSpaceLikeWord95, MS could sue them for patent infringement, and MS has only promised that they will not to sue. Legally, their promises mean nothing, as they can go back on their word at any time.
No smoke without fire... (Score:3, Insightful)
FIPS-151 (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad implementations of standards prevent the adoption of real standards.
Ironically this bit them later on, so they ended up buying a company (Softway Systems) that had extended the POSIX subsystem and removed the restrictions because they actually found they needed a working POSIX environment themselves. This totally bailed them out after they had twice failed to convert Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows NT.
Re:Microsoft == big $ == corruption ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the rules be different for OOXML?
Indeed, why should the rules be different OOXML? You raise a good point. I heartily agree with you. OOMXL should have taken the same route through the rigorous standards process that ODF was subjected to, instead of being placed on the totally ineffective fast-track process with the preferential treatment it was given.
Re:Time for a crazy theory (Score:4, Insightful)
In a standard, you have to be careful in specifying "what to do" as opposed to specifying "how to do it". In the case of password hashing, ODF does not specify which method you should use. It leaves that up to each implementation because each country has different standards. ie. Japan: (MD5, RIPEMD-160, SHA1, SHA256, SHA384, and SHA512),US:(SHA1, SHA224, SHA256,SHA384, and SHA512) . OOXML on the other hand introduces new, never tested, undefined MS-only methods that are required. Are these MS function safe and free of holes? Are they patented (which means you have to pay MS to use them)? No one really knows.
Again, same problem. ODF, like a good standard, references other approved standards. OOXML tries to introduce their own standard. For example, the function Networkday() returns Saturday and Sunday as weekends. This is true in Western cultures only. So this function is flawed for Muslim countries for example. But if you accept OOXML, you have to accept a flawed implementation of a function.
I don't know about programs in development but ODF has lots of released software that supports ODF. [wikipedia.org] Name one released application that supports OOXML: Not even Office 2007 fully implements OOXML.
One of the main issues with OOXML is that it contained many proprietary Windows-only, undefined APIs. So Windows programmer might use autoSpaceLikeWord95 but really has no idea what it actually does. So many non-Windows programmers may avoid OOXML altogether. That skews your sample.
If anything, the opposite is true. OOXML got fast-tracked. ODF did not. ODF approval required that all participating countries approve it. Somehow in the OOXML process, Abstain became Yes in some countries.