Just to add to the confusion there is a document from the SC34 Secretariat. It is confusing about its date: the 3rd paragraph (under Overview …) and the last paragraph (under Postscript) apparently conflict. Leaving that aside, it makes no mention of the 50% hurdle (under Balloting, voting and resolution) and states “To pass, at least two-thirds of the respondents voting (not ‘all P-members’) shall have approved …”. This is presumably just careless: I assume it intends to make clear that it is 2/3 of those voting, not 2/3 of all P-members, but as stated it is 2/3 of ISO members voting.
The next complication is how you are allowed to vote. Alex Brown correctly pointed out that 9.6 only allows National Bodies (in other words ISO members) who do not abstain to signify:
• Approval of the technical content of the FDIS/FDAM/FDISP as presented; or
• Disapproval of the FDIS/FDAM/for technical reasons to be stated;
So in a sense I (and others) have been wrong in stating that you can vote an outright No: you have to state technical reasons for your No. But this appears to be of no consequence. If you want to vote an outright No, you simply give as your technical reasons, the existence of ODF which you consider to cover the same subject matter. Since that reason is impossible to overcome by tinkering with OpenXML, you have effectively given an unconditional No.
The main complication, however, as Alex has just pointed out in a comment to the previous article, is the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). That will have to wait until tomorrow!
{ 2 } Trackbacks
[…] of course, since it is not possible to vote an unconditional No, if BSI wants to achieve that effect it needs to vote “No with […]
[…] majority of those members of ISO that cast a vote (that is a simplification - the full detail is here and in several other articles on this site around the same time.). Moreover, the current letter […]
Post a Comment