Do you love Microsoft?

The noOOXML.org blog had an article on whether you can add comments when you vote Yes on the letter ballot. I found it interesting because it included a reference to the G18 DIS Letter Ballot form, which I had not previously looked at.

Two points arise. The first is that it turns out that a vote of “abstain”, as opposed to a failure to return a G18 form, does give a National Body (NB) a ticket to the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). This has recently been clarified by ISO, according to Alex Brown (in Comment 2), who will be the convenor of the BRM. So my earlier guess on what the JTC1 Directives meant on that point (which I repeated here) was wrong.

The second point is whether this document supports the idea that a NB can vote “Yes with comments” rather than simply “Yes”. Unfortunately, it is as badly drafted as the rest of the JTC1 Directives and supports both interpretations. In the middle we have if a national body votes affirmatively, it shall not submit comments. That seems clear-cut. But then lower down we have a space to tick the line comments (editorial or other) appended, which apparently implies that a NB can append non-editorial comments.

So this really does not advance matters. In earlier posts, I discussed how the wording of the main part of the JTC1 Directives bore on this issue. Irrespective of whether there is a majority for or against approval in the letter ballot, there is a BRM. NBs who return a DIS Letter Ballot form (shown above) before the deadline get invited to the BRM. All “comments” are pooled and essentially form the agenda for the BRM. It is fairly clear that the procedure envisages that NBs voting Yes will continue to support the draft in the BRM. Those voting No, must give “technical reasons”, informally known as “comments” for their vote. The concept is that those who voted No will change their votes to Yes if enough of their “comments” are met by changes to the draft. So the BRM goes through the comments trying to see which are worth adopting. However, any NB at the BRM is free to vote any way it wants. If the BRM is able to get the requisite majority for an amended draft, then that is adopted. If not the draft fails completely.

The precise BRM procedure is likely to be largely determined by the “convenor”, who will be Alex Brown. So his views are clearly important. He gave them in comment 6 to Bob Sutor’s blog on 2 August. Like me, he thinks that a NB probably can submit “comments” with a Yes vote, but “The fact remains, though, that comments accompanying an approval vote are less likely to get addressed than comments accompanying a disapproval vote”.

Since comments are pooled, it only matters in the case of a comment which is not submitted by any NB voting No. But then, it is hard to be sure until it is too late whether a comment will fall into that category or not. Because one thing is completely clear - comments submitted after the 2 September 2007 deadline will be ignored.

Of course, MS wants people to vote “Yes with comments” rather than “No with comments” in the letter ballot, because they think that will tie the hands of the NB’s delegate to the BRM. A delegate from a NB which has voted Yes is likely to feel an obligation to vote for approval at the BRM irrespective of what changes are made or not made, whereas a delegate from a NB which has voted “No with comments” is likely to feel an obligation to refuse to vote Yes until the comments are adequately dealt with.

At least I assume they think that. It may be that MS just misunderstands the JTC1 procedure and thinks the draft will go through without a BRM.