Part of the Zen Garden, Ryoan-ji Temple

The maintenance of OOXML

There has been a bit of a hullabaloo about the supposed maintenance regime for DIS 29500 (should it become a standard). Neutral observers should know that much of this blogarrhea is “not even wrong”. Here's why.

First, there seems to have been some confusion about Ecma’s proposed maintenance agreement. The important word here is “proposed”, for while some commentators seem to have assumed that this agreement spells out what is happening, such a proposal does not equate to what will happen, what should happen, or even what necessarily can happen.

Secondly, Ecma’s proposal is (naturally enough given the complexities) incorrect in some aspects of its statement of JTC 1 process, and unclear in others. In particular, as was pointed out at the plenary (without contradiction) clause 2 of Ecma’s proposal is mistaken. It states:


However, what clause 13.13 actually states is:


and, as a matter of fact, JTC 1’s “designated maintenance group” is SC 34, and not Ecma. It is for SC 34 to decide how the maintenance of any future standard based on DIS 29500 is maintained.

Thirdly, the “JTC 1 rules” mentioned in the Directives clause 13.13 govern the maintenance and are clear and inviolable. In summary, they state:

• Proposals to amend the text, and acceptance of any such amendments, are subject to normal ISO voting processes (clause 15.5);
• The standard cannot be “stabilised” (i.e. no longer subject to periodic maintenance) except through approval in a JTC 1 ballot (Clause 15.6.2);
• For the standard to be stabilised it must have passed through “one review cycle” (Clause 15.6.1). In this review cycle the text would have to have been re-written to comply with ISO’s formatting and verbal requirements (Clause 13.4).

Fourthly, there are a number of alternative ideas being voiced how the maintenance will actually be handled, of which the proposal for a new working group is but one.

And finally, the rules for the Fast Track (which DIS 29500 is taking) differ from those for the PAS submission track (which ODF, ISO/IEC 26300:2006 took). ODF is being maintained by OASIS, as allowed by PAS. Any future IS 29500 will be governed by different rules as detailed above.

Battle Armour

On the left is a picture of a suit of Japanese samurai armour. It was suggested to me that this would be an appropriate outfit to wear for convening the BRM. Hmmm – it is slightly disconcerting just how many people are telling me this is the worst job in standardisation …

Be forewarned: the ISO process will “fail”

Speaking to fellow NB representatives, it is clear that lobbying (in many directions) is intensifying as the BRM nears. It would be naïve to expect anything else, I suppose. It amuses me the degree of self-certainty both sides have (coupled with very high levels of mistrust). One corollary of this is that they both profess that the only thing that can undo them is a “failure of process”. Tweedledum believes their DIS is so good that only a “failure of process” can thwart it; Tweedledee, however, is convinced that the DIS is so deeply flawed that only a “failure of process” could allow it to become standard.

And so, while I have up till now thought that a solid grounding in the JTC 1 Directives and meeting procedures would be a good education for convening the coming BRM, I am coming to believe that in fact the best preparation is being a father of two small children, both of whom are sometimes prone to intemperate outbreaks of sibling-rivalry. Inevitably, when this ends with one of them feeling they have “lost” a dispute, the complaint will be “it’s not fair”. I am fully expecting something equivalent when this standardisation process produces a result.