Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Hi, Funny then, that even after nothing being done by GNOME on TC45 since July (previous to OOXML vote on September 2) ECMA is still claiming GNOME participates in the disposition of comments: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/First%20group%20of%20662%20proposed%20dispositions%20of%20comments%20posted.htm We are listed as members of the committee which is accurate. Since the Foundation clearly wouldn't lie about not doing anything since July Your tone here raises the possibility that just maybe the foundation or I did lie. Hopefully I am mis-interpreting your intent and will go have some tea instead. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 05:05:08PM +, Alan Cox wrote: Don't change the subject. The statement I quoted is trollish. There is no need to say we are shooting at our own feet repeatedly. Especially without any argument (I do not mean just text in an email). The announcement was not neutral. The perception from outside is very clearly that you are active participants and its being used in that way. Because of the past (no announcement, no statement, no clarifications etc). This would've been very different if someone explained the intention. Plus corrected any misperceptions in a reasonable timeframe. That would appear to be shooting at own feet But that is the past again, I object to the statement that the current announcement means that we are shooting our own feet. My objection is not about how this was initially handled. That could've been way better/clearer. Perhaps you'd care to critique the relevant points instead of jumping up and down like a small child going ner ner na ner ner My second reply was not useful. However, I see no points to reply to. The only point is that GNOME foundation is being neutral still. I see no reasoning to back that up (e.g. quotes from the announcement). #4 is pretty clear. I did not like that GNOME foundation sort of silently joined TC45, especially not without a clarifying statement. Bad press (+misleading statements) have been very easy because of it. However, why then would this announcement be shooting our own feet again? It feels like the only argument behind it that it is not the outcome wanted by Rui. I still regard summarizing the announcement as 'shooting our own feet again' as a troll. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra The more you guys keep playing the neutral game, the more you'll get abused like this. There is no neutral game being played here. Concerns were raised that the GNOME Foundation's participation in EMCA TC45-M suggested that we supported OOXML becoming an ISO standard. Thus, the answer was simple: We do not. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 You know, the crunchy, folk-singer part of me wants to believe that a performance is a dialogue, but I can't hear a fucking thing you're saying. - Ani DiFranco ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
The page says p align=justifyThe work to standardise OpenXML has been carried out by Ecma International with representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Gnome Foundation, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress./p Given the recent statement from the GNOME Foundation, I that claim is in error. So it would make sense to write to Ecma and ask them to remove GNOME Foundation from that list. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Nov 24, 2007 8:27 PM, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no neutral game being played here. Concerns were raised that the GNOME Foundation's participation in EMCA TC45-M suggested that we supported OOXML becoming an ISO standard. Thus, the answer was simple: We do not. Well except that our representative on that committee supports OOXML becoming an ISO standard... Please stop the charade, getting involved in the process was a stupid mistake to begin with and continuing to do it while the hypocrisy shines through is just boneheaded. How on earth can offering constructive criticism, feedback and helping develop a specification NOT be supporting it?? -- mvh Björn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 04:11:11AM +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: On Nov 24, 2007 8:27 PM, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no neutral game being played here. Concerns were raised that the GNOME Foundation's participation in EMCA TC45-M suggested that we supported OOXML becoming an ISO standard. Thus, the answer was simple: We do not. Well except that our representative on that committee supports OOXML becoming an ISO standard... Please stop the charade, getting involved in the process was a stupid mistake to begin with and continuing to do it while the hypocrisy shines through is just boneheaded. I'll ignore the troll-ish words like 'stupid', and 'boneheaded'. Be civil, or debate in an echo chamber. The status of MOOX's ISOness has no bearing at all on my actions. There are a limited set of possibilities 1) MS and it's shills drive it through soon. 2) MS and more shills drive it through later. 3) MS invents a non-ISO way to declare it a standard (ala Mass). There is no 4) MOOX vanishes in a puff of smoke. I do not follow the politics of the national bodies, and make no predictions on the relative probabilities beyond the simple fact that they total to 100%. What seems much more interesting is that from a technical perspective none of them have more than a marginal impact on number of people using Office 2007. It is already shipping, and MS has made a commitment to it's software ecology to conform to the published spec. Any user that wants to use a new feature (eg sheet 64k rows) must move to the new format. Whether it is an ISO standard, or not, we will need to interact with the format, and it significantly easier to do that if I can ask MS questions and get answers. The ancillary benefit of having some overlap between the logical content in MOOX and the old binary formats is gravy. How on earth can offering constructive criticism, feedback and helping develop a specification NOT be supporting it?? By that logic all of the national bodies, and IBM are 'supporting' the process. They've all offered criticism (some more constructive than others) and feedback. The only difference is that we've had some of our questions answered already, rather than buried in the pile of 3000 or so the TC is digging through now. Our developers (GNOME and OO.o), and our users are better off with a clearer spec. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
