Right now, the reports on the voting results on the OOXML voting from the ISO National Bodies (NB) are pouring in. But take a look at Groklaw.
In February ISO had a Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM), working their way through the pile of comments attached to the No votes. Now, the NBs should decide whether their comments had been addressed at the BRM, but the voting procedure seems to be overwhelmed with irregularities.
In Denmark the sub-committee "voted" 8-4 against, never-the-less Danish Standards voted Yes. But its hard to get confirmation, because sub-committee participants are not allowed to talk about what happened at the meeting. Don't know why. So much for Openess.
In Norway the sub-committee vote was 21-2 against, but the Standard Norway still changed their vote to Yes.
And so forth - almost every country has its own story of irregularities.
Looks like the world will have another flawed technical standard.
I am looking forward to seing what insights Simon Phipps, might have on the subject. Andy Updegrove has chosen the positive attitude. Personally I am not sure whether to laugh or cry and I am unsure which impact having two document stardards will have in the long run besides making the TCO bigger.