Posting from the fake IP for obvious reasons, sorry.
Seeing that rather detailed notes from the meeting was posted by EFFI in another thread, please name that company and try to provide some more details. It is not clear who you are referring to, and it would be good to know. The meetings are closed, but what happens behind those closed doors is not a secret once the meeting is over. If there is anything you want to share, you are free to do so. (You did not take a vow of secrecy, did you? If you did, things are looking grim for openness and democracy.) You are anonymous anyway, so please post what you know. Details on who thinks what can be helpful in many ways.
August 20th update from Finland - The vote results and begin of aftermath.
In brief: Finland doesn't say anything on OOXML. (Abstains)
From "computer.fi", http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id=31076
- "Microsoft wished that Finland would say 'approval with comments'"
Haven't we seen all this before, many times? Hello, here's my so-called standard, please approve it or you will cry and approve.
Other lies, I mean highlights from the same newsstory:
- Microsoft's managing director Ari Rahkonen said "the company decided already over 10 years ago to move from closed binary format into an open one. Also EU has wished for this."
Rahkonen told about ending with xml-based solution and progress of the process via ECMA towards ISO.
- Microsoft was praised for finally standardizing the file format of Office. (?!!)
- Patents in the standard were discussed. Microsoft manager Kimmo Bergius defended that their company won't sue anyone over them and no royalties or licences would be collected.
- Chairman Nirhamo from SFS concluded: "If the state branches would have been unanimous, we would have come to decision. Now it wasn't so. I don't see a chance to vote for either approve or disapprove."
EFFI.org liveblogged results from the meeting, here's a quick translation:
First comment from Microsoft: Approval. (Surprise?)
Pekka Pere (Tietoalojen liitto/Proha): Approve. We must trust ECMA
Pirkka Palomäki (F-Secure): No opinion. Open standards are important - no comment on quality
Ville Salmela (Ministry of education): Not fully open as it is now. No with technical comments
Manu Setälä (COSS): Plenty of problems. No with technical comments
Tuomas jotain. (Sun Microsystems): Openness is splendid. ISO-standard must be independent from any manufacturer, which it ain't now. OASIS/ODF is better. No with technical comments
Finnish tax administration: No opinion
Karjalainen (ministry of justice): Overlaps with ODF, No with technical comments
Heikki Sinervuo (EK, Confederation of Finnish Industries): Open APIs are good, two standards would be too expensive, one is enough. No with technical comments
Juha Hakala (National libraries): Openness is extremely important, preservation of digital files is obligatory. Must be compatible with other standards. No with technical comments
National archives of Finland: Timespan is hundreds of years, a few months or an year doesn't matter - when doing something, do it properly. No with technical comments
Ville Oksanen (EFFI ;-): No with technical comments
Jyrki Kasvi (The greens): Openness is important, Microsoft has historical ballast. No for fast-tracking
Jyrki Koskinen (IBM): Plenty of problems. No with technical comments
Timo Skytta (Nokia): There are standard organizations of various quality in the world. ISO is on the top and no reason to change this. No for fast-tracking
Riitta jotain - City of Helsinki: Standard helps with compatibility, must trust ECMA. Approve.
Anne Honkaranta (University of Jyväskylä): OOXML is an ok standard - a little bit worried that ISO must regain its credibility.
Want to favor the some group of companies? If we say no, it will get out of hand. No opinion from university. Instead, from SysOpenDigia, approval
Juha Varronen (Nordea bank): De-facto standard - pondered between no opinion and yes - approve
TietoEnator: It will come anyway - better if its more open. Approve
Finnish customs: We must trust the experts, 6000 pages tells something about quality. Mining of information is important. Approve
Satama Interactive: As a representative for Microsoft ecosystem - de facto-standard. Approve
Some researchproject from university of Kuopio: We've gotten familiar of this, too many problems. No with technical comments
Ministry of trade and industry: Important matter for us as users. ISO-standardization adds to openness, fixes/changes should be possible also in fast-tracked process (?!). Approve
Juha Turunen (Cap Gemini): Backwards compatibility is important. Approve
Sami Köykkä (WM-Data): Important for our clients - hopefully problems can be fixed, anyway approval
Systems Garder: A loud yes
Ministry of finance: A question for Nirhamo - what's the contradiction about standard, how will the process continue?
(intermediatory comments * Microsoft says there were no perceived problems at the beginning * Nirhamos's reply - Microsoft might _not_ want to go into that discussion or that how this got into fast-track in the first place)
Nirhamo's reply: No exact definition for contradiction, but if there is, they _shall_ be intervened. (He said shall, not should) Ballot will be taking place in any case and only No will matter.
Microsoft: ECMA has promised that comments with Yes-votes will be taken notice of.
Nirhamo: ECMA has no significance in this.
Ministry of finance: We're along to demand open standardization - thus approval is justificated. There are things that need to be thought about - no showstoppers. (Nirhamo took this as a No with technical comments - wow!) General MS-noise ensued ;-)
Simo Tanner, Association of Finnish local and regional authorities: There are technical problems that should be fixed. No with technical comments
Tieke (Finnish Information Society Development Centre): Plenty of discussion going around, no own opinion.
Novell: Ei opinion
FiCom (Finnish Federation for Communication and Teleinformatics): Yes (Whoops, usually they go along with EK, Confederation of Finnish Industries)
TietoTapiola: As I haven't read this myself at all, approve
Jarkko Lehtinen (Miriabilis): The question isn't about rejection but revising. There is a lot more at stake than just technical quality. It's probable that ODF / OOXML-compatibility won't be realized.
Ministry of finance: Revised our opinion - Approve.
And finally, why is Microsoft allowed to vote in a matter that benefits them - mostly only them alone?
Would any court of law allow the accused to join the jury and vote in their own judgement?
Some more precise considerations from the meeting in a newscomment:
Evening began calmly, but as discussions progressed emotions got surprisingly agitated when Microsoft representatives were trying to get recognized.
Meeting seemed genuinely (!) important for Microsoft, since they brought in managing director Ari Rahkonen, information society relations manager (read: main lobbyist) Mikko Alkio and also Kimmo Bergius, who acts as information security leader among other things. (Mikko Alkio was Special Adviser to Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen before taking the job at Microsoft)
Major surprise came near the end of the meeting, when chairman Nirhamo, information technology standardization expert from SFS announced taking off his "chairman's hat" and being a private person for a while.
After this he expressed frankly his views why OOXML should NOT be approved for fast-tracking and what kind of problems he has noticed in it.
Nirhamo's outburst clearly annoyed Microsoft's representatives and they questionned the validity of chairman. His colleagues ratified his position and that he still enjoys the confidence of SFS.
Microsoft assured the preparation won't end with ISO standard and that ECMA will surely continue its development and fix shortcomings.
They also claimed to be sure there's things to fix in ODF also. (….)
Question about 6000 pages of OOXML standard they replied explicitly: "Other members of ECMA have swollen the specifications."
The question is not why microsoft is allowed to vote but why are companies like IBM and Sun using a competitive format (in Notes 8) allowed to vote.
Microsoft is at least a company that has an interest in implementing the proposed standard.
Several other parties interest in this meeting is just on blocking a format used by competior Microsoft which does not seem to qualify as a reason to be an ISO participant. ISO is ment to support standardization and not to block competition.
Btw, if i read it correctly there where 15 approvals and 13 no with comments and a few abstains. So actually the 'abstain' is actually a loss for Micrsoft as there was a qualified majority for approvval of the standard. Only here on this anti OOXML site one would call this a victory.
And this guy:
Nirhamo: ECMA has no significance in this.
He needs to vote on a standard proposed by Ecma and than states Ecma has no significance in this. That is just funny.
He might realise that Ecma is the organisation that can actually implement any proposed changes to Office Open XML so any comments that the meeting would have been able to send in would have to be looked at by Ecma.
The question is not why microsoft is allowed to vote but why are companies like IBM and Sun using a competitive format (in Notes 8) allowed to vote.
Microsoft is at least a company that has an interest in implementing the proposed standard.
Because if you know anything about standards, you should know that in an standardization process, all the interested parties must be present independently if they are willing to implement the standard or not because they are already using another competitive standard.
If you know anything about the market also, when your competitor makes something, you are an interested party in that thing, because at the end it will affect you.
What has no sense is that the proposer of the standard hijacks the committees worldwide that have to approve the standard and at the end gets a standard only for itself (because all its many dependencies to Microsoft and flaws).
Standards are for all, not only for you. If you want a standard for yourself, this is not a standard, this is a proprietary and exclusive matter only for you.
An Microsoft wants a standard for itself (and its partners, as Novell and Apple).
if i read it correctly there where 15 approvals and 13 no with comments and a few abstains
Not exactly, you counted wrong:
Microsoft - Yes (1)
Pekka Pere (Tietoalojen liitto/Proha) - Yes (2)
Pirkka Palomäki (F-Secure) - Abstain (1)
Ville Salmela (Ministry of education) - No (1)
Manu Setälä (COSS) - No (2)
Tuomas jotain. (Sun Microsystems) - No (3)
Finnish tax administration - Abstain (2)
Karjalainen (ministry of justice) - No (4)
Heikki Sinervuo (EK, Confederation of Finnish Industries) - No (5)
Juha Hakala (National libraries) - No (6)
National archives of Finland - No (7)
Ville Oksanen (EFFI) - No (8)
Jyrki Kasvi (The greens) - No (9)
Jyrki Koskinen (IBM) - No (10)
Timo Skytta (Nokia) - No (11)
Riitta jotain - City of Helsinki - Yes (3)
Anne Honkaranta (University of Jyväskylä) - Yes (4)
Juha Varronen (Nordea bank) - Yes (5)
TietoEnator - Yes (6)
Finnish customs - Yes (7)
Satama Interactiv - Yes (8)
Some researchproject from university of Kuopio - No (12)
Ministry of trade and industry - Yes (9)
Juha Turunen (Cap Gemini) - Yes (10)
Sami Köykkä (WM-Data) - Yes (11)
Systems Garder - Yes (12)
Ministry of finance - No (13)
Simo Tanner, Association of Finnish local and regional authorities - No (14)
Tieke (Finnish Information Society Development Centre) - Abstain (3)
Novell - Yes (13)
FiCom (Finnish Federation for Communication and Teleinformatics) - Yes (14)
TietoTapiola - Yes (15)
Jarkko Lehtinen (Miriabilis) - No (15)
Ministry of finance - Yes (16 and -1 to no, so 14)
So in total 16 yes, 14 no and 3 abstentions. This means abstention in any normal standardization committee.