what I am pointing out here is that both sides managed to fool ISO, and it is not a big deal. ODF didn’t require a strong lobby activity as far as I know, and in this respect there is a difference, I agree.

If you didn’t heard about opponents lobbying efforts I would suggest you to check out how many members get at the very end of the process in Italy, and how did they vote. Enlightening.

you are raising a very important issue, I believe. This time, much more than other times were the general public was less interested or aware on the subject, we saw an amazing lobbying activity. Despite I am a fan of ODF, I think it is fair to let people know that JTC1 commissions were under a simultaneous bilateral attack.

Talking about real problems, I am afraid that ISO is publicly showing its limits. I really hope that all this will help us to get ISO’s participation and decision processes more similar to IETF.

It is really great time for a change, now.

I believe that sooner or later similar charges against opponents will come out.

I’m not sure that’s the point though, Roberto. In my experience of various standards bodies, paying for experts to be involved is relatively normal. I’m sure we’ll find that various companies engaged various others to represent them or at least to participate from previously known positions.

The issue with the recent OOXML vote was less that people were recruited to the committees and more the numbers in which they were recruited. The recruitment may have been both within the rules and part of normal practice. But the scale of the recruitment was not.