Hypocrisy

Today’s blog represents my personal views, and does not represent the interests or opinions of organizations I have worked with in the past or presently.

2008-04-04. Just this Wednesday, ISO/IEC announced that the Open XML specification won overwhelming approval. 86% (61 countries!) of voting ISO countries stated that they want to see Open XML ratified as an ISO/IEC standard. This is a resounding collective voice of support from countries around the world, including the four largest IT markets: the US, Japan, Germany and the UK. Is there any other document format standard that has received such widespread support from the global community? No. This was not a close vote – Open XML won by a healthy margin. Only ten markets voted against ratification, and in a number of those there were strong voices in support of Open XML. By any measure this is a clear statement of support for ratification after a very careful review process that rivals any other standards review in history.
In the face of this clear statement, groups opposed to ratification of Open XML want to continue their harangue and tear down anyone who doesn’t agree with them. In doing so, they are insulting the thousands of people and entities that worked through this process with care and integrity. They are also fighting against the idea of choice among document formats and international control over this widely used document format.
They have resorted to making accusations of impropriety on the part of national standards bodies where they were unhappy that their negative views on this issue didn’t carry the day – notably on blogs such as noooxml.org and Groklaw. They would have you believe that no one could possibly favor ratification without being bribed or manipulated. Indeed, it appears that they find it impossible to believe that anyone could possibly disagree with their views, despite the overwhelming number who do in fact disagree with this position.
These direct attacks on the integrity or national standards bodies are without merit. They reflect a lack of understanding of how standards are developed and how standards bodies operate, or are a cynical attempt to spin things now that 61 countries have decided not to follow their hotly delivered directions. Understandably, national standards bodies are striking back, protecting their hard-earned and well deserved reputations from this smear campaign.
I do want to avoid going into the smearing campaigns against individuals as much a possible. Only some general remarks. It looks that there are still many people presenting themselves as process or material experts who believe that arguments become stronger and better when shouting louder and using dirty language. A few people even express their views that following the formal roads to improving standardization processes is no longer the most effective way to achieve something in the standards area. If individuals believe that the whole standardization process is without value, one can wonder why ODF proponents have ever sought the ISO/IEC logo on their standard.
IBM has happily been fanning the flames of many attacks, just as it was aggressive in its failed attempt to stop international acceptance of Open XML. IBM seem to go through different phases in its relation with JTC 1: in the eighties full support and even driving JTC 1, in the nineties IBM withdrew almost completely from JTC 1 and national activities, and did we now arrive at their pure butt and bray approach? When Ecma was invited by SUN in 1999 to make a standard for Java, IBM was pushing hard to make it happen. And what was the preferred process? Well, no surprise: first a ‘catch-up’ project in Ecma to be followed by a Fast-Track process in JTC 1, exactly the same what has been used for OpenXML to bring it as soon as possible to the international level. Indeed, nothing new under the sun unless your attitude changes and you have gone sour.

A few examples for illustration:
Participation in Standards Body Committees. A frequently raised “wrong” is widespread participation in national standards body processes. –This is an ironic accusation given that “anti-Open XML” voices joined national standards bodies very late in the day. Putting aside the intellectual dishonesty of this position, the fact is that more participation in standards development is unquestionably a good thing, as long it is in keeping with the established rules of a particular national body. So, if these rules allow participation, more voices are better than fewer when it leads to a healthy dialog.
I can see why IBM opposes more voices (at least those that don’t agree with its commercially motivated views). It has enjoyed unparalleled influence in international standardization for decades and may not now like more voices and decision makers in this process. Its allies could not have been clearer about that commercial agenda– to force the purchase of their products by blocking governments from procuring Microsoft Office, regardless of technical merit or actual demand.
There is a simple word for this: hypocrisy. After all, IBM itself actively recruited partners and others to join standards bodies in Argentina, Belgium, Croatia, Italy, Norway, and Serbia, among others. And, in Italy, IBM even took a curious approach to the concept of “one company, one vote” when SAP Italia Consulting, whose website describes itself as “an IBM company”, joined the Italian committee alongside IBM. Apparently, IBM is selective in its opposition to many voices in the standards process.
Letting the National Standards Bodies Speak. IBM also claims that it believes in the importance of national standards bodies’ independence. Yet this is belied by the fact that Michael Breidthardt, an IBM Germany employee and member of the Ecma Co-ordinating Committee, is listed as the author of the critical comments submitted by the Kenyan national standards body during the contradiction period at the start of the ISO/IEC process. These negative comments are the same as or similar to others that IBM pushed around the world in its failed attempt to block choice in the marketplace and international control over Open XML. It’s unclear what role IBM Germany should play in the Kenyan decision, and how that reflects the Kenyan national experience. When IBM talks about independence, it really means that national standards bodies should be independent of anyone who disagrees with IBM’s position.
Transparency. More voices in the standards process are a good thing. This engagement should be above board and transparent. An IBM employee in Egypt sent a letter to the Tunisian national standards body claiming that Open XML doesn’t properly support Arabic. The first problem is a factual one: the accusation is false. The second, and more concerning from the perspective of transparency, problem is that the individual doesn’t identify himself as an IBM employee in the email. Instead, he says “I don't prefer to mention my company name as I'm sending this email on behalf of myself not my company.” Why not be transparent and just state the name of his employer, particularly when that employer led the failed effort to oppose global adoption of Open XML?
While this is not an issue of transparency, it is remarkable to see the actions of one Avi Alkalay, who describes himself as “an Open Standards, Open Source and Linux advisor at IBM Brazil in Brazil” and calls for a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on openxmlcommunity.org, a community of thousands of supporters, users and implementers of Open XML. Apparently anything is fair game when you’re attacking someone who doesn’t agree with you, even if some would call it cybercrime.
Google’s Late Arrival. Despite its claims that late entry into the standards process are improper, IBM happily welcomed Google’s entry into the 14 month process at the very last minute in a futile attempt to shore up its ultimately unsuccessful efforts to block global ratification of Open XML. In three national standards bodies, Google joined very late, sometimes a matter of just a few days before the final vote:
· Denmark – Google joined on March 26th.
· Norway – Google joined on March 14th.
· Finland – Google first participated in the March 27th meeting.
In others, Google joined just in the weeks leading up to the BRM (Brazil, Germany, and Ireland). And in France, it joined the day of the national standards body’s vote during the initial balloting period.
In Switzerland we had the representative of FSFE being hired by Google, then participating both in Switzerland AND Germany as representing Google, and additionally preparing contributions to Norway and Serbia. Indeed, there are no frontiers for Google’s behavior.
I want to understand – how is it a violation of the standards process for companies to join national bodies at the beginning of this process but not a problem for Google to march in and vote ‘no’ at the last minute? Have you ever heard IBM or its proxies complain about this?
* * *
Many views should come to bear on decisions made in standards bodies. It is ok to represent your views. It’s healthy. But it seems inappropriate to me to tear down anyone and any organization who disagrees with you through allegations of corruption. It is time to move on, particularly when you are throwing rocks while living in a house with LOTS of glass. Let the voices of 61 countries around the world stand and stop the attacks, if only to stop highlighting your own hypocrisy.