Gotze.eu

Tag: Politics

  • The Fast And The Furious

    Computerworld writes that ISO on Saturday agreed “to put Open XML, the document format created and championed by Microsoft Corp., on a fast-track approval process that could see Open XML ratified as an open, international standard by August”.

    According to CW, an e-mail sent Saturday by Lisa Rachjel, the secretariat of ISO’s Joint Technical Committee (JTC-1) on Information Technology, states that “the Open XML proposal, along with comments and criticism by nations that have already reviewed it, will be put on ISO’s 5-month balloting process”.

    ISO has not yet confirmed this. Their press officer, Roger Frost, told me that he expects to have information about the next step in the process by tomorrow.

    So, it seems that Microsoft has succeded in pushing the agenda, and the only interpretation I can make of this is that ISO accepts that the balloting does not necessarily end with an unanimous vote. CW writes: “For a proposed standard to be approved by the ISO, no more than one-third of JTC-1, or 10 countries, can vote against it. Meanwhile, no more than one quarter of ISO’s 157 members that cast their vote — non-JTC-1 member countries may abstain — can vote against it.”

    I now foresee, and will by all means contribute to, a continious campaign for members states to vote against the approval of the substandard “standard”. Voting against the approval should not be seen simply as a vote against Microsoft, but should be based on the solid fact that EOOXML is flawed, heck even Microsoft acknowledges this.

    By pushing the fast-track, those who care about the standard of standards are forced to vote against the approval, since balloting is binary (yes/no), and a yes-vote would mean that the as-is Ecma-standard is endorsed. At the end of the day, it’s a vote about the credibility of international standards and about the legitimacy of international standardization processes.

  • Bob Sutor in First Life, Copenhagen

    Bob Sutor is in Copenhagen, and will give a public lecture at the IT University at 5pm today, Wednesday. He’ll talk about what’s going on with open standards and why it’s important, also to IT students. I’ve reserved the big lecture hall (Aud 1), and everyone is welcome to join us.

    I’m certain that Bob will talk about the situation around document formats, where a lot is happening. Just covering the past couple of days’ events around the standards is a talk in itself: It’s clear now (!) that many standards bodies point to contradictions around Ecma Office Open XML and its submission to ISO, so the fast-track for Microsoft’s Office 2007 format becoming a standard is slowed down (at least, if not stopped?). In other news, two more US states gives more momentum to OpenDocument, and ODF passes yet another maturity signpost as ODF 1.1 is now an OASIS Standard.

    Over at my Danmark 2.0 blog, I have suggested that the newly formed S-142/U-34 Danish Standards mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 34 spend their time on making ODF a Danish Standard. That would be kind of ironic with all those Microsoft Gold Partners in the group, I know, but none the less, I’m deadly serious about the proposal!

  • Local History of Standards

    Quoting myself:

    This article discusses current and recent developments in Denmark, where open standards have become a central policy issue. Although Denmark is prone for leading the way in true, large-scale openization, a full-blown effort towards these ends is highly unlikely.

    That’s the abstract of an article I wrote for translation into Spanish and publication in Novática, the journal of the Spanish CEPIS society ATI, Asociación de Técnicos de Informática, issue 184 (November-December 2006).

    The editor, Llorenç Pagés, is also Chief Editor of Upgrade, The European Journal for the Informatics Professional, and will also there soon publish an issue about ODF, in which I will have an extended version of my article.

    Llorenç allowed me to share my English manuscript, so I’ve uploaded it here: You can get the ODF-version or the web-version: A Brief History of Open Standards in Denmark, where the password is ODF 😉

    I invite comments on the article. I’m still working on the extended version, and think improvements are possible …
    On a side-note, I had to hack WordPress to be able to upload ODF-files within it. Bugger, that should be a standard feature!!

    On another side-note, you should be able to use OpenID when leaving your comment.

  • Belgium Jumps On The ODF Wagon

    I have been inspired by BELGIF for a while, but here is somethig that puts Belgium on The ODF Map:
    Dominique Deckmyn of ZDNet reports (same here) some very interesting news from Belgium:

    “In a blow to Microsoft, Belgium’s government departments will be instructed to use an open file format for internal communications.”

    There is a press announcement from the Belgian Council of Ministers about “Use of open standards for the exchange of office documents”. The announcement is available in only French and Dutch, none of which are languages I am very proficient in, but as far as I can tell, the decision proposed by Mr. Peter Vanvelthoven, Minister for Employment and Computerization, was made Friday by the Council of Ministers, and essentially says:

    “All federal government agencies must from September 2007 ensure that they can receive and read ODF documents. This does not exclude the use of other formats. It is up to each agency to determine the way in which the functionality of reading is guaranteed.

    Depending on the results of an impact analysis carried out by Fedict, ODF will from September 2008 be the standard format used for the exchange of office documents.”

    Someone who speaks French or Dutch, please verify my translation.

  • Openize Denmark, Parliament Orders

    On Friday (June 2, 2006), the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) had its last session before the Summer break, and on a very long agenda, the very last issue (#57) was the second and last reading of Morten Helveg‘s Proposal for Parliamentary Resolution on Open Standards (B103). I posted a bit about it earlier this week, and said then that it was still pending, and that it was opposed by the Government. That was accurate information as of a week ago.

    But politics is the art of changing things, and over the last week, crafty politicians have been at work, and changed things. Morten Helveg pushed for settlement, and then Danish People’s Party’s Morten Messerschmidt and Jørgen Dohrman put their fingerprint on the resolution with an ammendment, so a majority vote would be reached. And to cut a long story (see below) short, on Friday afternoon, the Parliament voted and decided the following resolution (my translation):

    Parliament imposes on the government a duty to ensure that the public sector’s use of IT, including use of software, is based on open standards.

    The Government should adopt and maintain a set of open standards by 1 January 2008, or as soon as technically possible, which can serve as an inspiration for the rest of the public sector. Open standards should be part of public IT and software procurement with the object of promoting competition.

    The Government should ensure that all digital information and data that the public sector exchanges with citizens, companies and institutions, are available in open standards based formats.

    Note that the translation is mine, and might not be 100% accurate. It for example differs slightly from the one provided on Groklaw. Furthermore, the original decision in Danish is actually not now available yet in the Parliament’s public information system (case file here, around 50 documents, in Danish), so be advised that a formal translation of the decision is, well, pending.

    The challenge is not just one of language nuances between Danish and English, but indeed also one of interpretation of the resolution itself, and of its reach and scope in particular. And here caution is an absolute necessity, because we know how distorted things in our field always get.

    A few specific observations:

    1. Anne Østergaard’s Denmark to follow in the foot steps of Massachuchets on open standards is flawed, in my opinion. The decision does not say that the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation has to make a law proposal in the next session of Folketinget.
    2. Søren Thing Pedersen’s Denmark mandates open standards by 2008 is accurate enough, but only because mandation can mean many things. I do agree with Søren in his assessment, though. Also, check his site for a link to a video with the 30 minute reading in Parliament.
    3. Jeff Kaplan’s Looking for IT Leaders? Try Denmark is a must read.

    At any rate, Friday was indeed a good day for the Danish IT policy, as Morten Helveg also said during the reading in Parliament. On Saturday, he made a post tited Victory! (Sejr!) in his blog. He writes (my translation):

    …
    But it was a bizarre procedure. Wednesday afternoon, the Liberals attempted to outvote the resolution’s formal vote-taking. Completely uheard of! Then the Standing Orders Committee intervened to ensure that I of course could get my resolution to a vote in Parliament.

    A majority without the Government was established with Danish People’s Party, and then the Liberals and the Conservatives turned on a dime. Even if it was a pitiful attempt to demean the resolution made by the Liberals, considering they would vote for the resolution. It didn’t make sense. I think it was pretty clear to everyone who saw the debates that the Liberals were out on a limb.
    …

    On Thursday before the Parliament session, Michael Aastrup Jensen from the Liberals made a press announcement where he announced that the Liberals would vote for the resolution. The argument put forward is that the proposal carries good intentions. But Jensen also argues that the resolution will have no effects, and that the Liberals would have wanted to go even further. During the reading session, his tone sharpened, and he called the resolution “empty symbol politics of the worst kind”.

    Helge Sander, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, is from the Liberals. On August 15, he has invited the IT-spokespersons from Parliament to a meeting, where he according to Jensen will present how the Government wants to proceed.

    In conclusion, the vote in Parliament ended in an unanimous decision, but not in fence-mending. Quite the contrary, actually.

    But at the end of the day, and that’s what counts, Denmark is now a nation who has a parliamentary mandate for open standards. Thank you to the three Mortens: Morten Helveg, Morten Messerschmidt and Morten Østergaard, and to Jørgen Dohrman and Anne Grete Holmsgaard for carrying this through, and thanks also to Michael Aastrup Jensen and Helge Sander, and all other MPs for voting for this historic resolution!

    Bonus news: In the report from the Science Committee, one can read that there’s more to ODF in Denmark: Also the Ministry of Finance will from September 1, 2006 publish its new publications in ODF “unless certain contractual or content-related conditions occur”. The Government aims to have 3-4 or more ministries in the pilot launched by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

    So, we will have concrete ODF adoption projects in Denmark. Now. Very exciting! Kudos to Helge Sander for rolling that showball! Why didn’t you make decisions like that when I worked for you? Allow me to give you a hint: You know about Massachusetts, right? Did you know that they recently made a Request for Information (RFI) titled “OpenDocument Format Plug-in for Microsoft Office Suite”, and got some very interesting response? You should get your guys to talk to guys in Massachusetts. You could also make your own RFI, of course.

    Danish readers: I posted more over at my Danmark 2.0 blog.

  • ODF in Denmark

    [Note: Almost all links here are in Danish]

    The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation will from 1 September 2006 make its online publications and other written communication available in ODF. That was announced by Minister of Science, Helge Sander, during an open consultation meeting in the Science and Technology Committee of the Danish Parliament held on 23 May. Mr Sander said that “the use of open standards is essential to the development of e-government”, and that the decision to publish in ODF is “a first step”, and will be evaluated after a 6-months trial period.

    Mr Sander and his ministry has been under pressure for a while on the issue of open standards. The consultation meeting was called after the first reading of Morten Helveg‘s Proposal for Parliamentary Resolution on Open Standards (B103) in the Chamber of the Parliament. The second and final reading is still pending. I summarized the resolution here; it basically goes much further in enforcing open standards.

    Mr Sander and the Liberal-Conservative Government has opposed the resolution, which is put forward by the opposition. The resolution does however appeal to not only the opposition parties, but also the Government’s support party (Danish People’s Party, far-right) whose Morten Messerschmidt and Jørgen Dohrman however do hesitate supporting the resolution due to unknown economical effects. Those concerns have been at the heart of the debates, and been Mr Sander’s main argument against the resolution.

    On the day before the consultation meeting, the Danish daily newspaper, Berlingske.dk, published a news story, “Secret Report”, where they revealed the conclusions from an internal report from the ministry. Mr Sander promptly decided to send the report to the Committee and hence make it publically available, in order “to avoid any myth creation”, he said. The report is an initial analysis of the economic effects of enfording the use of open standards, and it concludes that although it is not possible to put an exact figure on the total costs (and benefits) of enforcing open standards at large, there is much reason in making open standards compulsory where interoperability is at stake. The report is dated December 2005, but I can reveal that the bulk text is even older, as I was the main author of the report as one of the last tasks I did before I left the ministry in September 2005. I’m glad the report is now public, so I can refer to it. I just re-read it, and although I personally might not agree to everything in it – it being a product of many opinions and “government speak” – it is still a good read, I’d dare say.