As I reported recently, the Massachusetts ITD has announced its intention to add Microsoft's OfficeOpen XML specification (now Ecma 376) to its list of approved "open standards," subject to a very short comment period that will expire on July 20. I have great concern that such a decision may be as influential outside of Massachusetts as was the original decision by the ITD in August of 2005 to include ODF, and exclude OOXML. That first decision raised the credibility and visibility of ODF dramatically, and it is fair to say that all of the later successes of ODF were made possible by that decision.
While the ITD has now announced that it believes that Ecma 376 has met its requirements, it is important to note that two years ago it reversed a similar conclusion as a result of energetic public input. That can happen again, and interim CIO Bethan Pepoli has stated as much in a widely reported quote.
Whether the ITD truly believes that Ecma 376 meets its requirements, or whether it has finally folded to the significant and ongoing pressure to which it has long been subjected cannot be known. But what is clear to me is that if enough people provide carefully considered and persuasive comments to the ITD prior to the expiration of the comment period, the ITD will be given an opportunity and the "cover" to reverse its position if it so wishes.
Preparing such comments is time consuming, but it is also important. I took several hours to do so yesterday, and have just sent them to the ITD. You can to, and I hope that you will. The ITD's comment address is standards@state.ma.us, and the deadline is next Friday. If you're a believer in open standards, please don't let that deadline pass without making your thoughts known.
Here are the comments that I sent in:
As you can imagine, yesterday's news that the Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD) may endorse Microsoft's OOXML (now Ecma 376) spread like wild fire among the journalists that have been covering the ODF/OOXML competition. As of nightfall the same day, a Google News search turned up 59 articles (many of which were reprints of the same, syndicated text). As many of these are short pieces that add only a paragraph or two of new material on top of the usual stack of text or factual background pulled from prior stories, I've selected and linked to a few of the more informative, interesting and controversial ones and pasted excerpts below. Not surprisingly, they are from journalists that have been following the ODF/OOXML story from the beginning, or not long thereafter, who could quickly round up the usual suspects and pull a quote or two for context.
Let's start with Andy Oram, from O'Reilly's OnLamp.com, who saw the Massachusetts decision as a blow, but not one to be taken lying down. He wrote a piece called How a standard can kill a standard that reads in part as follows:
As the U.S. Independence Day approaches, we can honor the shot heard around the world when the IT department of the state of Massachusetts declared a couple years ago they would adopt the Open Document Format….The standards process has clearly been turned against standards….If you live in Massachusetts, read Updegrove’s blog and the Massachusetts draft, and let the state know what you think by July 20.
True to his own advice, he's already sent his comments to the ITD, urging them to reverse their decision. You can read Andy's input here.
The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), the state agency that effectively launched the voyage of ODF around the world in August of 2005, has released a new version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model. And this new draft includes Microsoft's OOXML formats as an acceptable "open format." The new draft was posted today >here, and the very brief comment period will end on July 20. The header to the announcement at the ITD Web site reads as follows:
A review draft of ETRM v. 4.0 is available for review and comment from July 2nd through July 20th, 2007. Comments should be submitted to standards@state.ma.us. This major release of the ETRM updates content published in version 3.6, introduces the new Management Domain, enhances the ETRM's format for accessibility and usability as well as provides additions and updates to existing language and technical specifications. For a detailed outline of major revisions made in this version please consult the document.
The announcement is not a surprise to me, as I've been following the progress of the ITD's internal reviews over the past six months. I've not been commenting on this publicly in order to try to give Bethann Pepoli (once again the interim CTO, since the departure of Louis Gutierrez) and her team the space to do their internal evaluations with less pressure than Peter Quinn experienced the first time around. However, and as you can imagine, the ITD has been under as much pressure behind the scenes (and perhaps more) as the legislators of those states that have recently tried, and failed, to pass laws that would mandate open formats in government.
The OOXML-related changes to the text of the ETRM are deceptively insignificant. By my word search, there are only three references: the inclusion of the name of the standard in the introductory summary of changes, a brief description and migration section in the Domain: Information part of the draft (scroll down and look for the "Open Formats" section), and the listing of Ecma among the other standards bodies on a list of "Relevant Standards Organizations." But the potential impact of these change if retained will be great.
My blog entry from last Friday has sparked some commentary (a few examples are here, and here). One by Mary Foley particularly caught my eye, and moved me to respond to her. Here's the part of Mary's story that I thought merited a response:
Andrew Updegrove, cofounder of Gesmer Updegrove LLP and editor of the ConsortiumInfo.Org blog — as well as one of the leading opponents to Microsoft’s Open XML standardization effort — issued a dire prediction:
“If OOXML (Office Open XML), and now Microsoft XML Paper Specification, each sail through Ecma and are then adopted by ISO/IEC JTC1, then I think that we might as well declare ‘game over’ for open standards.”
I’ve been no fan of Microsoft’s methods for drumming up support for its standardization effort around Open XML. But I don’t see how the existence of multiple standards portends the end of open standards … even if a company that has abused its monopoly power is one of the players. Doesn’t “open standards” mean they should be open to the inclusion of technologies from anyone, even Microsoft?
Microsoft, like IBM, Sun and every other open-source and closed-source tech vendor needs to have its technologies designated as “open standards” in order to qualify for many requests for proposals, especially from government customers. That’s what’s behind Microsoft’s attempts to get standard status for Open XML and XPS.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with multiple contenders for "standardship," if you will. Mostly, though, it's a matter of timing. You might find this piece that I wrote last year interesting, where I try to distinguish between "standards competitions" and "standards wars:" It's part of an entire issue of the Consortium Standards Bulletin dedicated to standards wars.
To begin with, it was disappointing to hear legislators complaining that taking responsibility for the long-term availability of public documents should not be their concern. In Minnesota, Don Betzold, the Democratic state senator who was the original sponsor of the
…
We shall go on to the end,...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…
- Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940
If there was any doubt left in anyone's mind that Microsoft will do everything that it can, and wherever it must, to ensure that ODF makes the minimum inroads possible into its vastly profitable Office franchise, the news of the day should put that doubt to rest. In the continuing tit for tat battle between ODF and OOXML, Microsoft announced yesterday it's own interoperability project to bridge the gap between China's domestically developed Unified Office Format (UOF) and Microsoft's OOXML. The announcement tracks the intent of an already-existing "harmonization" committee, hosted by OASIS, that is exploring interoperability options between ODF and UOF, and also underlines Microsoft's increasing focus on the vast Chinese market.
This news is no surprise, in one sense. Microsoft has been waging a nation-by-nation battle for the hearts and minds of ISO/IEC JTC1 National Bodies, in an effort to win adoption of OOXML (now Ecma 376) as a global standard with equal status to ODF (now ISO 26300). In order to do so, it needs to offset the argument that one document format standard is not only enough, but preferable. With UOF representing a third entrant in the format race, easy translation of documents created using the competing formats would obviously be key to lessen the burden on customers. Moreover, last month, Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy called for the outright merger of UOF and ODF in a speech he delivered in Beijing – just a few days before Bill Gates arrived to keynote a Microsoft conference being held nearby.
My, my, how's anyone with a blog supposed to get his day job done this week? Bob Sutor at IBM just sent me to his writeup on Microsoft's latest release, titled (the press release, that is), "Microsoft Votes for Choice." The lead paragraph reads:
Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has voted to support the addition of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.0 to the nonexclusive American National Standards list. The vote took place as part of a process managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
That's a good thing, right? Well, yes, it is, as far as the vote goes. But when was the last time you saw a vendor issue a press release about one of the many standards votes it casts on an ongoing basis? Bob highlights the language from the press release that makes it clear that the PR motive for the release is to pave the way for the eventual submission of Ecma 376 (the Microsoft OOXML format) for similar approval:
Another new standard that the company anticipates will be approved for ANSI’s list is the recently ratified ECMA Open XML File Formats. Known in standards-body circles as ECMA-376, the new open standard is under review by ISO, with a final vote expected in late 2007 or early 2008 following a ballot vote in early September.
Rather than repeat what Bob has already concisely stated, you should read his argument that we need fewer, rather than more document formats. But I can't help noting one coincidence (?) that strikes me between the timing of this press release and the Fortune article that I wrote about yesterday.
Norway is the latest European country to move closer to mandatory government use of ODF (and PDF). According to a press release provided in translation to me by an authoritative source, Norway now joins Belgium, Finland, and France (among other nations) in moving towards a final decision to require such use. The text of the press release, as well as some of the statements made at the press conference where the announcement was made, are appended at the end of this blog post.
The Norwegian recommendation was revealed by Minister of Renewal Heidi Grande Roys, on behalf of the Cabinet-appointed Norwegian Standards Council. If adopted, it would require all government agencies and services to use these two formats, and would permit other formats (such as OOXML) to be used only in a redundant capacity. Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of OOXML by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to "promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage."
According to the press release, the recommendation will be the subject of open hearings, with opinions to be rendered to the Cabinet before August 20 this summer. The Cabinet would then make its own (and in this case binding) recommendation to the Norwegian government.
