On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 09:31 -0400, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > On 2006-05-04, at 05:57 , Ian Lynch wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 10:36 +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> Up to a point. Digg can react badly if you go too far, and my other > >> article http://digg.com/software/_Get_Legal_- > > > > There is always going to be risk, but the biggest risk is not to > > take a > > risk.
> Fwiw, usually in our prs we have a tension between goading MSFT and > trumpeting our own virtues, and have done fairly well, despite Ian's > implicit criticism, No real criticism. I just made an observation. Do with it as you will. > at this (he believes we ought to have strongly > mentioned MSFT in yesterday's PR on the ISO approval; I disagree). I was just agreeing with the Marketing Co-lead who said "MSFT adopting ODF would be far better news for us than ISO/IEC adopting it. But this is a discussion for another date / another time. One of the changes in marketing approach with the "Why?" campaign is to start addressing MSFT by name for the first time. I'd like you to leave them in ... if you can bring yourself to do so :-)" > In my own interviews, articles, etc., I routinely goad MSFT and am > routinely quoted, cited, interviewed: using MS as a red flag helps. > > But one has to be strategic about this. I understand strategy ;-) -- Ian Lynch www.theINGOTs.org www.opendocumentfellowship.org www.schoolforge.org.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
