Open XML auf dem Weg zum ISO Standard: Das BRM (Ballot Resolution Meeting)
Letzte Woche war BRM. In Genf.
"Ja und?" wird sich jetzt so mancher denken. Das heißt was genau? Und warum ist das von Interesse?
Das BRM ist der letzte Schritt des Standardisierungsprozesses im sogenannten Fast Track Verfahren. Seit letztem September war die ECMA beschäftigt, die eingereichten Änderungsvorschläge zu Open XML zu klassifizieren, quantifizieren, und zu bearbeiten. (Siehe auch: Open XML auf dem Weg zum ISO Standard - aktueller Status von Ende Dezember).
Erst im BRM wird über das endgültige Aussehen von Open XML entschieden. Erst dort wird von den beteiligten Normeninstituten festgelegt, welche Änderungen jetzt wirklich durchgeführt werden, und wie diese aussehen sollen.
Was man von den Beteiligten so hört war es eine anstrengende Woche. Es wurde ein gewaltiges Arbeitspensum angegangen, und im Endeffekt zur Zufriedenheit der meisten auch durchgezogen.
So schreibt zum Beispiel Brian Jones, BRM Delegierter für ECMA, Mitarbeiter von Microsoft: BRM is done... time to sleep :-),
Well, the BRM is over and I can only describe the week as a lot of technical work and a lot of great people I was lucky enough to meet and exchange ideas with. The objective of the BRM was to work with all of the National Body delegations in the room and improve the specification on a technical level -- and that we did. There were many technical changes the delegates made to really get consensus on some of the more challenging issues, but all of these passed overwhelmingly once they were updated. The process really worked (it was very cool).
The meeting closed with clapping and cheering, folks were really happy about the improved proposals for the specification and it was a very positive experience for me personally. [...]
I'm deeply impressed by the thoughtful consideration and strong commitment shown by the NB delegates to improve this specification and I want to thank them all. It is clear that the process worked.
Wie ist es also ausgegangen?
Nun: Solange von Seiten der ISO noch keine offizielle Stellungnahme vorliegt lässt sich darüber nur spekulieren. Im Allgemeinen sind die Leute sichtlich recht zufrieden nach Hause gefahren, auch wenn der eine oder andere fanatische Open XML Gegner anderes behauptet.
Diese Beobachtung macht auch mein Kollege Oliver Bell in seinem Blog Eintrag: That Was The BRM That Was
Well, the Ballot Resolution Meeting for ISO/IEC DIS29500 (OpenXML) is now over and done with.
Working out what happened in the room itself is a complex task while we still wait for an official release from ISO/IEC, I’m sure we will see something from then over the next few days.
I’ve seen a couple of posts this evening, one from somebody who was part of the process and was in the room and one from somebody who was not.
Brian Jones, who was in the room for the meeting, posted a very positive couple of paragraphs, talking about the significant progress that was made during the meeting. Brian discusses the work that the National Bodies have done over the last few days and the significant improvements to the DIS29500 specification that he believes will come out of that work. [...]
As always, Jason Matusow has a balanced view of the week, the meeting and the outcome.
There was an unprecedented number of delegations from national standards bodies that came to Geneva and participated in the BRM. I have the utmost respect for the contributions from all of the national bodies (P-members and O-members alike). The result of this week’s discussions, by any reasonable measure, has greatly improved the specification and produced a great result. The BRM was a complete success - congratulations to all who were involved with it.
For now I guess we will have to wait for the details of the final outcome, everybody I have spoken to tells me it was a very positive meeting and a resounding success.
Oder Jesper Lund Stocholm, BRM Delegierter aus Dänemark, Mitarbeiter von Ciber Danmark schreibt in BRM aftermath:
It truly has been a magnificent week. About 120 people from a bit more than 35 countries from around the world participated in the technical discussion in improving the OOXML-spec (DIS 25000). [...]
I think the process chosen was the best process given the circumstances. All alternatives were in my opinion worse than the one chosen – and I think it is important to emphasize that the process was chosen by the BRM and not chosen for the BRM.
[...] the purpose of the BRM is to improve the specification so that the countries can change their vote from “No” to “Yes” (or any other way). The result of the BRM is a list of improvements or changes to the DIS. These improvements have to be presented and approved (preferably by consensus) by the BRM itself. [...]
Auch Rick Jelliffe, BRM Delegierter aus Australien, CTO von Topologi Pty. Ltd, schreibt in The Hell of Geneva:
The BRM went pretty much the way I expected: grinding through the issues, politeness, assertiveness, corridor sessions, strange bedfellows, a lot of newbies who made up for it with articulateness, candour and brains. In substance, it was a typical ISO meeting: issues, votes, different personalities and cultures interacting, some people happy, some people pissed off about individual results, limited time, stimulation, mind-numbing alterations to resolutions, boozy dinners with fascinating techoes, late-night study sessions and early morning drafting gallops. [...]
I’ll blog some more, but the BRM clearly has succeeded in its formal aim, which is to produce a better text. Every response by the editor was formally voted on. The big picture issues were given extra time for detailed discussion, and the NBs had opportunity to raise their highest priority issue, in turn.
Sogar Tim Bray, BRM Delegierter aus Kanada, Mitarbeiter von SUN Microsystems, schreibt in seinem Blog unter BRM Narrative:
Now that the BRM is over, I feel I can write about it a bit more; there are some restrictions, but I’ll lay them out. Summary: A lot of good work was done, but the process is irretrievably broken. [...]
The business of the BRM was to vote on which of these Responses (or variations) should be applied to the draft to produce something that might convince enough countries to change their votes from “No” to “Yes” to make this an International Standard.
What Actually Happened: The “convenor”, Alex Brown, a good guy in a lousy situation, called on the countries in alphabetical round-robin, giving each a chance to talk about a Response (or related group of them), and potentially propose a change to the spec. Of course, nobody’s going to spend time on Responses they’re already happy with, so people focused on where they saw problem areas. [...]
[...] Most proposals, once cleaned up, passed by consensus, a few came to a vote, a few of those lost the vote. Votes were simple majority, one per country, regardless of “O” or “P” membership status.
What Was Good: The people. With a very few exceptions, everyone really tried hard to work together and make the document better. Everyone freely acknowledged that the job was way too big, but there we were for a week to take a run at it anyhow. I include the nations’ representatives and the ISO people and the Microsoft people when I say this; they were, by and large, a pleasure to work with.
Jason Matusow (Microsoft) fasst in seinem Blog The Open XML Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) Was An Unqualified Success die Zielsetzung und die Ereignisse sehr gut zusammen:
The DIS 29500 ballot resolution meeting (BRM) finished up in Geneva today and was an unqualified success by any measure. A few things need to be kept top of mind as national bodies solidify their position within the next 30 days:
- A BRM is about technical work on the remaining open issues most important to participating national standards bodies
- Extensive steps were taken within the last year to improve Open XML through work with national standards bodies (and their participants) within the inclusive framework of ISO/IEC processes.
- A BRM is successful if it produces technical improvements to the specification to address comments raised during the ballot phase.
- ISO/IEC standards are not only technically sound, but they should also be relevant to the marketplace.
There was an unprecedented number of delegations from national standards bodies that came to Geneva and participated in the BRM. I have the utmost respect for the contributions from all of the national bodies (P-members and O-members alike). The result of this week's discussions, by any reasonable measure, has greatly improved the specification and produced a great result. The BRM was a complete success - congratulations to all who were involved with it.
Eine sehr produktive Woche also, die viele mit Stolz zurückblicken lässt.
Aber wie gesagt: Neben den Standardisierungs-Experten, die aktiv an einer Verbesserung des Standards mitarbeiten, gibt es auch eine Handvoll von Fanatikern, die umso lauter Ihre Weltanschauung postulieren.
Wie ich Oliver Bell schon vorher aus seinem Blog That Was The BRM That Was zitiert habe:
I’ve seen a couple of posts this evening, one from somebody who was part of the process and was in the room and one from somebody who was not.
Schauen wir also mal kurz zu denen, die gar nicht dabei waren, und trotzdem alles besser wissen:
Andy Updegrove, who was not in the room for the meeting, posted a very different story. He discusses outcomes of the various issues that were discussed during the meeting. Given that no information has been released from ISO/IEC I struggle a little with this post and can only guess that Andy is rushing to be “first with the news”.
Interessanterweise meint auch Herr Updegrove, dass das Treffen ein großer Erfolg ist, streitet es aber im selben Satz gleich wieder ab.
In his post Andy talks about how 98% of the dispositions were approved, then goes on to talk about how the meeting failed. I’m not sure what success looks like in Andy’s world, but I’m guessing that consensus is only achieved when 100% of people agree with him.
Oliver Bell führt dann weiter aus, dass solche realitätsverweigernden Blog Posts sichtlich nicht so ungewöhnlich sind, und bei Herrn Updegrove öfters vorkommen:
Updegrove’s post is not totally unprecedented. On a couple of occasions last summer he rushed to explain that the National Body in the United States had voted for a disapprove for DIS29500 as the committee went through a preliminary voting process. That was right before the United States approved the draft standard for DIS29500, a fact that I can’t find documented on his blog.
Auch Jesper Lund Stocholm, BRM Delegierter aus Dänemark, schreibt in BRM aftermath:
Within minutes of after Friday 29th of February at 17:00 rumors started to flow that “The BRM failed” or “ISO failed”. I honestly disagree to this. We were facing an impossible task but we dealt with it according to the purpose of the BRM: To change and improve the DIS. There is really nothing more to say about it.
Und Rick Jelliffe, BRM Delegierter aus Australien, meint in The Hell of Geneva:
[...] there are people for whom no amount of improvement in the text will make OOXML an acceptable subject for an ISO standard [...]
Am besten fasst das aber Tim Bray, BRM Delegierter aus Kanada, zusammen, indem er in Spin! schreibt:
I thought I was sufficiently jaded and cynical that not much in this business could surprise me. Even given that, I’m flabbergasted at the degree of spin, no, make that bald-faced lying, in coverage of the just-finished BRM. The contempt for truth is sickening, and some people ought to be ashamed of themselves. Check it out if you’ve got a strong stomach.
Ach ja: Alex Brown, der Leiter des BRM hat sich auch zu Wort gemeldet. Auf Herrn Updegroves seltsamen Blog Eintrag hat er mit folgendem Kommentar geantwortet:
Authored by: Alex Brown on Saturday, March 01 2008 @ 03:59 AM PST
Andy,
I’m won’t be composing a blog entry on the BRM for a bit, but I will point out that your article contains surprising inaccuracies about what the subject of the vote was, how it worked, and what the governing rules were. A health warning is in order.
Da erübrigt sich, denke ich, jeder weitere Kommentar.
PS: Andy Updegrove ist if Boards of Directors der Free Standards Group (FSG), sowie der Linux Foundation. In der Linux Foundation ist er ausserdem Director of Standards Strategy. Vielleicht erklärt das ein bisschen seine Sicht der Dinge.
