I assume the comment was ironic flamebait, but just in case ...
ODF went through the non fast-track ISO process, taking about two years to complete its passage. Amendments were made and considered, and the implementations have been changed to reflect this standard file format. This is how standards are supposed to work.
We *nix fanbois don't mind what Microsoft does with its software, and would very much like it if they would include ODF support, as scrutinised and amended over a couple of years and ratified by ISO. However, although invited, Microsoft declined to participate in this rigorous standardisation process, instead declaring ODF to be unfit for purpose and choosing to put forward their own competing standard, O(O)XML.
We *nix fanbois have no problem with Microsoft putting forward another standard (though it seems a bit unnecessary). At 6,000 pages it is quite a lengthy standard, but the ISO process is designed to give rigorous scrutiny to lengthy and complex technical subject matter.
Now comes the bit where we have a problem. The standard was submitted to the ISO fast track process, a process put in place for giving rapid approval to de facto standards which are in widespread use with multiple implementations. The standards which have passed through this process have an average length of about 100 pages, and O(O)XML exceeds the mean length by about 60 standard deviations. There is no reference implementation. But instead of allowing the proposed standard to enjoy the rigorous examination which ISO allows, Microsoft were determined that this outsize unimplemented standard should complete the fast track process for which it was so clearly unsuited. While not wishing to make a judgement of motives, the objective facts are that a number of countries became full members of the relevant fast track committee shortly before this standard came for voting, and have only ever voted once: in favour of O(O)XML being ratified without full scrutiny.
As for BSI, they were one of the national standards bodies which did a pretty good job of analysing these 6,000 pages in the 30 days allowed by the fast track process, and submitted many observations. The ISO committee collated the observations from all the national bodies and, after de-duplication, there were just over 1,000. These were to be addressed and resolved in a week's worth of meetings, and at the end of this week the vast majority had not been addressed.
The point which UKUUG want to have judicially reviewed is this: when the standard was first examined by BSI it was rejected for a large number of reasons. When it was voted on the second time, BSI voted for approval despite most of these reasons not having been addressed. Why did BSI change this position, which was based on objective technical judgement, when the reasons for its original rejection had not been addressed?