Before presenting some evidence in support of this assertion, I would like to caution the reader to please avoid jumping to conclusions about ISO/IEC ITTF being corrupt or anything like that. I have the very strong impression about the ITTF officials who have been in charge of the international aspects of the OOXML "fast track" process that they have sought to do their work in a manner which as was fair and unbiased as they could. There is some dishonesty in pretending that the process is governed by the JTC1 directives document when in actual reality that isn't quite true, but this is an old problem which has persisted for quite some time, it isn't specific to what happened in the OOXML approval process. In hindsight it can of course be argued that the procedural decisions which were made have favored the side that eventually won, but that is the case in almost every decision-making process with a-priori uncertain outcome. I believe that instead of making any accusations, we should seek to understand how ISO/IEC JTC1 decision-making currently works, and then discuss whether it would be advisable to modify this decision-making process, and if so, how.
Now to my assertion about the ISO/IEC JTC1 decision-making process in actual reality not being based directly on the JTC1 directives document, but rather on the ITTF's interpretations of the directives. Let my try to formulate my hypothesis carefully in a way which avoids it sounding like an attack on ITTF:
Hypothesis: In the case of discrepancies between what ITTF says what the decision-making process is and what the directives say about the decision-making process, it is ITTF's pronouncements which govern the actual decision-making process, and as long as the ITTF officials seek to make the procedural decisions in a manner which is as fair and unbiased as they know how to, such discrepancies are not a reason to expect that an appeal against the eventual decision would succeed.
What evidence do I have? Well, I can show that such discrepancies exist, and I know from personal contact that a significant number of experienced participants in the ISO/IEC JTC1 process are aware of them without finding them in any way alarming.
One example is of course my point from yesterday about "abstain" votes. ITTF's interpretation of the rules was published in the official FAQ document (see specifically 6.2 and 6.7) and it has governed the process, even though it is different from what the directives actually say.
Another example is that at the Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva, everyone, including O-Members, had the same voting rights, although according to the directives, only P-members should have had the right to vote. The relevant sections of the JTC1 directives are 9.1.4 which says what the normal voting rights rule for meeting is, and 13.8 which says that this "normal procedure" should be applied in ballot resolution meetings of the fast-track process, but only "if a vote is unavoidable". The reason for this qualification is that "at the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus."
9.1.4 In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval.
13.8 At the ballot resolution group meeting, decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures.
From my personal perspective (I participated at the Ballot Resolution Meeting on OOXML as a member of the Swiss delegation) I really think that the JTC1 directives are in need of revision in this regard. What useful purpose would it have served to create procedural unpleasantness just in order to deny O-members the power to vote?
The above examples show that discrepancies exist. It is more difficult to present evidence for the second half of my argument, which is that experienced participants in the ISO/IEC JTC1 process are not alarmed by these discrepancies. I would suggest that readers who don't want to take my word for this should talk with experienced committee members in their respective national standardization bodies.
The connection between the observation that experienced participants in the ISO/IEC JTC1 process are not alarmed by the discrepancies, and the claim in my hypothesis about the discrepancies not being a reason for expecting an appeal to be successful, is of course that these people would be alarmed if procedural violations had happened of a kind that could be expected to lead to a successful appeal.
This of course does not imply that there will be no appeal, nor that such an appeal couldn't possibly succeed. However I predict that if there is an appeal, it will be seen that the kind of procedural discrepancies which I have been pointing out are not sufficient for making such an appeal successful.
Well, we'll see how things play out.