Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
quote who=Luis Villa So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen? Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an announcement is pending about a related issue, which may address concerns (legitimate or not) raised about GNOME's involvement in TC45-M. Participation in the TC45-M process does not imply approval or support for ISO standardisation of OOXML. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 When you're running, you want to run as far as you can, and you can't run further than Australia. - Jacek Koman ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: On 6/10/07, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) ECMA We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a non-profit member. Jody has expressed an interest in being a representative for GNOME, and suggested it would also be good to get someone there from Abiword. ACTION: Behdad to contact Jody about the ECMA membership application and find a good candidate from Abiword to attend. Behdad to work on getting a press release for our membership. What would our purpose be there? As a non-profit we (GNOME) would not have voting privileges. The membership will serve as a mechanism to allow interested foundation members to join ECMA committees. I'm advocating this in relation to ECMA376/TC45 aka MS OfficeOpen XML. Committee members have the ability to request clarifications and suggest improvements in the text of the specification. For anyone implementing parts of this format this is a golden chance to get enough documentation to facilitate interoperability. Seems reasonable. Of course, I'd be more comfortable with it if we put out a press release saying something to the effect of 'we see no way to avoid implementing OOXML without screwing our users, so we're joining ECMA to make sure it sucks as little as possible. All other things being equal, we'd much prefer to implement a spec that has a much better patent grant, was developed through a more public process, uses open standards like mathml, etc., but since MS has a dominant market position, we don't have much of a choice in the matter.' So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen? Right. I should be blamed for not getting the press release out. Not that the flame is correct (it's not) or even would have been prevented by a press release. It's not like anybody cared to contact Jody or the board or foundation before flaming... Luis -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 23:46 -0400, Corey Burger wrote: On 10/29/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Luis Villa So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen? Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an announcement is pending about a related issue, which may address concerns (legitimate or not) raised about GNOME's involvement in TC45-M. Participation in the TC45-M process does not imply approval or support for ISO standardisation of OOXML. Wait a sec. The simple matter is that we are getting hammered for something that isn't even true. How is the board fixing that? By trying to clarify our position. I agree though that FUD travels much further and faster than facts. Corey -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On 6/10/07, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:18:54PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: On 6/10/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) ECMA We have the opportunity of joining ECMA as a non-profit member. Jody has expressed an interest in being a representative for GNOME, and suggested it would also be good to get someone there from Abiword. ACTION: Behdad to contact Jody about the ECMA membership application and find a good candidate from Abiword to attend. Behdad to work on getting a press release for our membership. What would our purpose be there? As a non-profit we (GNOME) would not have voting privileges. The membership will serve as a mechanism to allow interested foundation members to join ECMA committees. I'm advocating this in relation to ECMA376/TC45 aka MS OfficeOpen XML. Committee members have the ability to request clarifications and suggest improvements in the text of the specification. For anyone implementing parts of this format this is a golden chance to get enough documentation to facilitate interoperability. Seems reasonable. Of course, I'd be more comfortable with it if we put out a press release saying something to the effect of 'we see no way to avoid implementing OOXML without screwing our users, so we're joining ECMA to make sure it sucks as little as possible. All other things being equal, we'd much prefer to implement a spec that has a much better patent grant, was developed through a more public process, uses open standards like mathml, etc., but since MS has a dominant market position, we don't have much of a choice in the matter.' So, uh... this apparently didn't happen, and now we're getting flamed (rightfully) for appearing to give a stamp of approval to a deeply flawed standard. So... when is the board making this happen? Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
quote who=Luis Villa This flaming was completely and utterly predictable. I'm disappointed that the board took the time to approve an action that obviously exposed GNOME to PR problems without taking the (very obvious) PR steps to reduce that impact. Based on the genesis of the open letter, it is hard to believe it would have helped. That said, since the letter, there have been numerous contacts to the Board and members of it, and there is likely to be a more official response to come (due to the interest in clarifying what on earth the letter was about). I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies, especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation and encourages members to run for election. I'm sorry I couldn't find a way to write this sentence without sarcasm. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Boys will be boys, hackers will be hackers, geeks will be geeks, and cyberpunks will always just be ravers with Macintoshes. - Monkey Master, Crackmonkey ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
