As expected, the blogosphere had exploded with unsolicited comments (including yours sincerely) about the BRM. The usual suspects (Rob Weir, Andy Updegrove, PJ, OpenMalaysia, Brian Jones and Jason Matusow [second entry] to name a few) had blogged. I am still waiting for Bob Sutor’s comment (as on Monday 3 March 1500GMT). Slightly unexpected was the criticism of the process by Tim Bray.
What was really unexpected are that the initial reports from news website, such as PC World, PC Pro, Computer World and Reuters to name a few) are overwhelmingly negative. Some of the early articles (Reuters and Computer World) are presumably based on the same early accounts (as information at that time is bound to be sketchy). Others have more time to research the topic and are more balanced because they not only include the opinions of the authors, but also comments from Microsoft personnels. This make the fact that the underlying negative tone more noticeable.
Most interestingly, however, is the lack of Microsoft statement hailing the BRM as a success, the way they did with September vote. [I will let Mary Jo-Foley reminds you of the incident] The Press did not buy it at that time, let alone this time.
I am a opponent of OOXML from the beginning, although I will not consider myself a zealot in this case. I blogged earlier that my current goal had changed to showing that the OOXML’s ISO recognition should fail because the Fast Track process is inadequate. Therefore, these developments are welcomed by me. Not only it increase the visibility of the inadequacy of this process, it put ISO and NBs on notice to do the right thing, i.e., resists the lobbying process and be prepared to defend one’s decision on purely technical ground.