Hello Open Source folks, XML-J 2002 award (and rankings) was stolen from OpenOffice, (and rankings from Cocoon and Batik as well) by employing unfair and illegal tactics. XML-J editor acknowledged on 12th September that they aware of the rigging, but later try to evade their obligations with shallow excuses.
We had noticed heavy rigging for Agileblox and notified to XML-J editors while the rigging was in progress. Please refer to ‘Evidence:A’ and ‘Evidence:B’ given below that was provided to them several times during past 6 months. Also, the first part of the ‘Evidence:A’ was provided while the rigging was in progress. Response to the complaints (email dated 12th of September), the editor said not to worry, he had aware of it, and promised all bad votes would be removed in the audit process. Evidence A: ----------- A large block (about 150) of votes was cast on early hours of 12th (between 2:00AM and 7:00AM EST) in favor of Agileblox. About 90% of the voters from voter number 2470 to 2600, cast to the product in each of the categories it was nominated. (The web site displays voter numbers during the polls, which shows upto the minute count of voters.) Then again after 40 hours of almost no activity, another large block (about 96% of the votes between voter number 3062 and 3115, as per the web site) of votes was cast on early hours of 14th (some time between 2:00AM and 6:00AM EST). Exactly 50 votes were cast to Agileblox, in each of the categories it was nominated. Isn't it seems like an obvious attempt by unscrupulous people to fix the contest? The editors could verify the voter database to determine the truth. They could check the email-ids and voter ip-addresses. The voter database contains all the evidence they need. Please notice the time of voting. It was during nighttime in the USA and daytime in India. Elansoft, an Indian company, listed no Indian customers on the web site. Evidence B: ----------- According to an ex-employee of Elansoft, they have sold only 4 user licenses (between release of the product and closing date of the contest) with total revenues of about US$4,900. Also, he said that Elansoft management encouraged about 8 employees to cast the illegal votes. (Understandable, our Indian sources likes to be anonymous until he gets protection from reprisals.). If the editors want 100% proof; they could ask the management at Elansoft to deny the allegations under oath. Ask them who are the customers, purchased licenses before September? In light of the allegations, they could demand this information or ask them to surrender the Award. Readers of the XML-Journal elected the winners by casting their votes online. Agileblox Chart 1.0 was a contestant in three categories of the XML-Journal 2002-awards. In all categories they cast themselves illegal votes and over 80% of the total votes they secured were illegal. XML-Journal allows visitors to monitor-online, the number of votes secured by each product at any time. This contest usually lasts over four months. During the period any one could monitor the number of votes and each product’s ranking in each category at any time. In a short period of about couple of days, just 1 day before the polls were to be closed (Sep.15th, 2002), Agileblox moved from near bottom to top. The rules for voting clearly state that one person can cast only one vote in each category and the voting system has security features to discourage fraud. However, many experts agree that such online voting systems cannot be made foolproof, but recommend to put enough hurdles to let criminals know that they are committing a crime. If any one intentionally defrauds the system for own financial gains and cause material damage to others, it is a crime. In consequence of Elansoft’s action, OpenOffice, cocoon, batik and other genuine products did not get the award (or rankings) as well as the sales promotion and marketing gains associated with it. Also, Elansoft promoting their product using illegally won award and rankings to defraud unsuspecting businesses. Why XML-J editors have been ignoring all the clear evidence and evading their basic moral obligations? Any product with almost no sales and no customers could sweep the awards, by employing such tactics, with out any impunity. Isn’t it unethical to promote such awards as Oscars of software industry? Since September we have requested XML-J editors many times to take necessary action. The editors neither denied the allegations nor given any proper response; But evading their obligation using shallow excuses such as demanding phone-numbers of anonymous sources. Why do they need it, when they have all the evidence in their voter database? All we are asking is to investigate the truth in the allegation, which they have acknowledged that they were aware of the rigging. Also, many of you who had voted, may have noticed that OpenOffice had more votes than AgileBlox at the end of the contest. Under the circumstances, the voters disserve satisfactory answer why OpenOffice lost the Award. The Open source products (OpenOffice, Cocoon and Batik) contested for the Awards must know the truth. Also, I request OpenOffice users to send emails to XML-J editors (email-ids given below) and ask them to examine the evidence. Please let them here the voices of Open Source folks. Regards, John [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
