This site
Essentials
Spec Issues
Other languages
Resources
Copyright (c) the respective authors. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License.
Our sources inside ISO report that ISO is preparing to announce the results of the OOXML vote to be "NO". These sources cannot be identified, and the result is not official. However our own figures support this. Seventeen participating ISO member bodies voted No, with eighteen voting Yes. According to ISO rules, 2/3 are required to vote Yes for a proposal to pass. Other contributors report fifteen or sixteen No votes, not seventeen.
Any news from San Marino, Andorra and the Vatican? ;-) I was told some Bananas joined as P-members.
Did you get the info from a onkey, only monkeys and idiots refers countries and things as "bananas"
Did you get the info from a onkey, only monkeys and idiots refers countries and things as "bananas"
Never you listened to the expression "banana republic"?
If didn't, I suggest you to ask Microsoft for a complete list of them…
//A human.
PS: btw, I understand that with the excitement and passion of the moment, you wanted to write "monkey" instead of "onkey"…
Strong Global Support for Open XML as It Enters Final Phase of ISO Standards Process - (Microsoft press release)
Geez, my head is spinning like a gyro on steroids.
Fifty-one ISO members voicing support at this
preliminary stage of the process compares favorably with the 32 ISO members
supporting Open Document Format (ODF) 1.0 at the end of its process and the
15 ISO members supporting PDF/A-1 at the end of its process.
That is definitely putting a good spin on a bad one. How many members voted when ODF and PDF was approved? With how many comments?
That press release is simply laughable, twisting the truth to the extreme. They completely fail to mention that almost half of the qualified P-member votes were negative, and that many more members voted "no" for OOXML than in the ODF ballot which was 100% positive. They also say that "most countries expressed their willingness to approve the standard once their comments are addressed". Taken literally, this would actually translate to "most countries voted 'no' ". This was not the case, but note that this particular phrase is a spin they could have put on it regardless of the result of vote - even if it had failed with 100% majority. Someone at MS must think this is clever, but I think it's pathetic.
I think FFII should counter this with a press release saying "Strong global opposition to Open XML as it hits trouble for the final phase of ISO standards process". This ugly spin should not be allowed to stand undisputed.
Also, the recent damage control strategy from Microsoft bloggers to say "we appreciate all the constructive comments" is just silly. Someone even said "I haven't seen too many of the comments yet, but those I have seen will probably not be too difficult to address". Unless the plan here is that "address" means "ignore", I definitely see a large number of fundamental comments that will be very difficult to accommodate, even among those submitted very early in the voting process.
"Strong Global Support for Open XML"
I guess this is Microsoft-speak for "we managed to buy various dictatorships and banana republics like Barbados, Fiji, Kazakhstan etc. around the world to vote yes"
I guess the US classifies prefectly in that "dictatorships and banana republics" category as well?
Yes, the US is right to be placed among those countries, with such a corrupt government system: corporate lobbying.
This process actually has little or nothing to do with democracy or governments. Many countries had procedures which were wide open to exploit, and Microsoft did not even have to think about buying the government, they just needed to stuff enough puppets into a small technical committee in the national standards body. In Sweden, that cost them around €40,000. In some other countries, it was even cheaper. The US was slightly different in that it seems to have done like Poland: when one committee does not vote the way you expect, have another committee ignore them and vote differently. Still, this is not a problem with the government, it is a sign of corruption in the national standards body - a much smaller, less open and much more vulnerable system which was unprepared for this kind of tactics.
Even if there's only 15 No votes, doesn't that make it impossible for the P membership to reach a 2/3 majority?
With 41 P members, 15 No would means a max of 26 Yes, which is still only 63%. Isn't the minimum number of P members needed 28?
More than that by the ISO rules no votes take precedence over yes votes - if 25% of P countries vote no the result is a fail even if 66% vote yes. So it is 12 votes (I think at current P country count) saying no that will cause this to fail again at the BRM if it takes place even if they manage to get 66% yes.
It's not over 'til it's over. Who knows, maybe they'll "pull a Hungary" and suddenly decide to base the vote on 50% plus one instead of 2/3.
if 25% of P countries vote no the result is a fail even if 66% vote yes.
This is wrong. The 25% concerns the total number of "no" votes, the 2/3 majority is for "yes" votes from P-members only.
Andy Updegrove has a good blog post on the process, and I also summarized it in another thread here.
Here are the details of every country's votes according to our latest calculations:
| Argentina | O Member | Abstention |
| Armenia | O Member | Approval |
| Australia | P Member | Abstention |
| Austria | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Azerbaijan | P Member | Approval |
| Bangladesh | Approval | |
| Barbados | Approval | |
| Belarus | O Member | Approval |
| Belgium | P Member | Abstention |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Approval | |
| Brazil | O Member | Disapproval |
| Bulgaria | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Canada | P Member | Disapproval |
| Chile | O Member | Abstention |
| China | P Member | Disapproval |
| Colombia | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of | Approval | |
| Costa Rica | O Member | Approval |
| Côte-d'Ivoire | P Member | Approval |
| Croatia | O Member | Approval |
| Cuba | O Member | Approval |
| Cyprus | P Member | Approval |
| Czech Republic | P Member | Disapproval |
| Denmark | P Member | Disapproval |
| Ecuador | P Member | Disapproval |
| Egypt | O Member | Approval |
| Fiji | Approval | |
| Finland | P Member | Abstention |
| France | P Member | Disapproval |
| Germany | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Ghana | Approval with comments | |
| Greece | O Member | Approval with comments |
| India | P Member | Disapproval |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | P Member | Disapproval |
| Ireland | P Member | Disapproval |
| Israel | O Member | Abstention |
| Italy | P Member | Abstention |
| Jamaica | P Member | Approval |
| Japan | P Member | Disapproval |
| Jordan | Approval with comments | |
| Kazakhstan | P Member | Approval |
| Kenya | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Korea, Republic of | P Member | Disapproval |
| Kuwait | Approval | |
| Lebanon | P Member | Approval |
| Luxembourg | O Member | Abstention |
| Malaysia | P Member | Abstention |
| Malta | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Mauritius | Abstention | |
| Mexico | O Member | Abstention |
| Morocco | O Member | Approval |
| Netherlands | P Member | Abstention |
| New Zealand | P Member | Disapproval |
| Nigeria | Approval | |
| Norway | P Member | Disapproval |
| Pakistan | P Member | Approval |
| Panama | Approval | |
| Peru | O Member | Abstention |
| Philippines | O Member | Disapproval |
| Poland | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Portugal | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Qatar | Approval | |
| Romania | O Member | Approval |
| Russian Federation | O Member | Approval |
| Saudi Arabia | P Member | Approval |
| Serbia | O Member | Approval |
| Singapore | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Slovenia | P Member | Abstention |
| South Africa | P Member | Disapproval |
| Spain | P Member | Abstention |
| Sri Lanka | O Member | Approval |
| Switzerland | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Syrian Arab Republic | Approval | |
| Tanzania, United Rep. of | Approval | |
| Thailand | O Member | Disapproval |
| Trinidad and Tobago | P Member | Abstention |
| Tunisia | O Member | Approval with comments |
| Turkey | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Ukraine | O Member | Approval |
| United Arab Emirates | Approval | |
| United Kingdom | P Member | Disapproval |
| Uruguay | P Member | Approval with comments |
| USA | Secretariat | Approval with comments |
| Uzbekistan | Approval | |
| Venezuela | P Member | Approval with comments |
| Viet Nam | O Member | Abstention |
| Zimbabwe | Abstention |
The vote from Germany is missing.
whrer are all of you taking all the info? pleae plase pla se!!! tell me!!! ty.
The frontpage picture does not reflect these votes at all.
it looks like a lot of the votes are not in that picture yet.
Participating members: 40% (16) approve, 37.5% (15) disapprove
All above: 58.62% (51) approve, 20.69% (18) disapprove
But what about countries such as Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan? Aren't they O-Members?
MK
Cuba approved? I read somewhere a while ago that the Cuban government was migrating to Linux desktops… Strange, indeed
Cuban NC responsible confirmed twice to FFII (today and Monday) that they voted "AGAINST" DIS 29500 and that they checked the registry of ISO.
They are now checking what has happened.
It's Cuba, what do you think happened? :-)
The results are also here:
those are older, from 2 sept
Certainly a victory for everyone involved, who have worked hard to overcome what at times seems unsurmountable odds, only to protect the quality, heritage of ISO and what it stands for.
whrer are all of you taking all the info? please if somebody can paste a link? i searching in google and there is just old news, please i beg all of you.
"whrer are all of you taking all the info?"
It is written in the top of the page: "Our inside source…"
I guess he/she is anonymous and you will have to wait until wednesday where ISO will come with an offcial statement.
September 04, 2007 7:56 am ET
source: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/04/isorejects/index.php
IDG News Service
Print
ISO votes to reject Microsoft's OOXML as standard
By Peter Sayer, IDG News Service
Microsoft has failed in its attempt to have its Office Open XML document format fast-tracked straight to the status of an international standard by the International Organization for Standardization.
The proposal must now be revised to take into account the negative comments made during the voting process.
Microsoft expects that a second vote early next year will result in approval, it said Tuesday.
A proposal must pass two voting hurdles in order to be approved as an ISO standard: it must win the support of two-thirds of voting national standards bodies that participated in work on the proposal, known as P-members, and also of three-quarters of all voting members.
OOXML failed on both counts, according to figures provided by Microsoft, and by other sources with knowledge of the voting process. ISO has not yet officially announced the results.
Microsoft could miss out on revenue from the lucrative government market if OOXML is also rejected next year. Some governments, worried that the need for access to electronic archives held in proprietary formats leaves them hostage to their software vendor, have mandated the use of document formats that comply with open international standards.
Others are considering such a move, which could put Microsoft at a double disadvantage to open source products such as OpenOffice.org, which not only store files natively in the standardized Open Document Format, but are free.
Here are a few figures more relevant than those of the MS press release :
- 32 valid votes by JTC1 P-Members : 2/3 is 21.33, and there are only 17 YES votes —> FAILED
- 69 valid votes by ISO Member Bodies. 25% is 17.25, and there are 18 NO votes —> FAILED
Amongst the 30 "original" JTC1 P-Members : 8 Yes, 14 No, 8 Abstain
Amongst the 11 "late-comers" JTC1 P-Members : 9 Yes, 1 No (Ecuador), 1 Abstain (Trinidad & Tobago)
Amongst the 15 "late-comers" SC34 P-Members : 12 Yes, 0 No, 3 Abstain (Chile, Finland, Trinidad & Tobago)
About a possible vote stuffing : I think that the figures speak for themselves.
Luc Bollen
A few more mathematics :
- Total votes : 87 (51 Yes, 18 No, 18 Abstain)
This can be decomposed as follows :
- Original JTC1 P-Members: 30 ( 8 Yes, 14 No, 8 Abstain)
- Other ISO Member Bodies: 57 (43 Yes, 4 No, 10 Abstain)
I call "Original JTC1 P-Members" those registered as Participant Members at the end of the contradiction period. By definition, the 57 other voters were not Participants to the process until very recently…
Again, we clearly see from where the overwhelming support to OOXML is coming !
Luc Bollen
Interesting here is Ecuador, who joined late to vote "no". What's their story? And my hat off to Trinidad & Tobago, who showed enough balls to say that they could not possibly form an opinion in this short time, despite Microsoft putting a pressure on them to vote "yes".
I don't have the full details, but from their mailing list, it seems like there were a lot of open-source advocates in their committee.
Association of free Software of Ecuador ASLE www.asle.ec impulse No to openxml
Libya voted NO with comments. Despite strong pressure from Microsoft partners to Vote yes with comments. I don't see Libya listed in the table above.
Hassan
This document …
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddzgv9cv_1gkb7rm
shows the original P countries that has "positively" approved DIS
29500… side by side with the other countries that didn't give a
blank check to it ( abstained or dissaproval ). This document excludes
the 11 NBs that changed suddenly and suspiciously his condition for O
to P members.
ODF ownz, fuck OOXML!
And there I think we had our first "friendly troll" sighting. Dear 190.52.144.240, while I can certainly agree with your point, as inelegantly put as it was, this forum is not the proper place for immature profanity to express opinion without attempts at motivation. Your post adds nothing to the discussion other than what the domain name says. Contrary to some other forums you might be frequenting, people are actually trying to make sense here. However, please feel free to be more specific as to how one should f*ck OOXML (unless you actually mean that literally, in that case we don't want to know) and in what way ODF ownz.
open formats are good enough without another new proprietary format from M$.
