On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 08:03 -0700, Adam Moore wrote: > Wow. If whomever represented OOo to these people really came off this way I > hope they realize that they have done OOo a disservice and we should > seriously consider if they should be representing OOo again. Is the person > who talked to them willing to give their view of what happened?
It would be useful to know if this really is policy that has the backing of the Community Council. It makes the Community look very bad if it is seen to be trying to negate any options on interoperability. Of course this could be a Microsoft ploy to make the OOo community appear as bad as it is. A statement from the leadership stating unambiguously the project position on interoperability would be a useful thing because without it, just about anyone can say anything. OOo has nothing to fear from interoperability. Lack of courage in dealing with that issue will only do harm to the project. > On 9/12/06, Catharina Bethlehem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Through a Dutch popular weblog I came across this article: > > > > http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/blog/index.php?2006/09/07/5-are-we-traitors-or-mercenaries#co > > > > Most of the reactions on the Dutch site were very negative for OO. I am > > not enough into the subject to give a reaction but maybe people of this > > list are. > > > > Catharina Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
