Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Here's something IBM's Rob Weir said about what ECMA is doing now: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The practical difficulty here is that of timing. While I have no doubt that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technical disclosures from Microsoft back in 2006, Ecma TC45 is not in that mode of operation right now. The OOXML standard Ecma 376 has already been approved by Ecma. It is now before JTC1 as DIS 29500 and the text is essentially frozen since December 2006. The only changes that can be made to it must be in response to specific JTC1 national body ballot comments. Jody can no longer go to a TC45 meeting and say, "Gee, I'd like more information added on X, Y and Z". JTC1 rules forbid changes to the standard that are not traceable to a national body comment. Certainly, Jody or any other Ecma TC45 member so inclined can help Microsoft address the thousands of ISO comments that were received, and help prep OOXML for approval by JTC1. There is certainly a lot of grunt work to be done there. But let's not call that anything but what it is -- helping Microsoft gain ISO approval. If this is accurate, then it is impossible for participation in ECMA _today_ to serve the goal which has been presented here as the motive for GNOME's membership. Rob continues: Of course, when then next MS Office version comes around (Office 2009 ?) and Microsoft wants to revise OOXML to account for new features, then I'm sure Ecma TC45 will reactivate for new work and Jody can continue his good work getting more detail from Microsoft. But right now TC45 is entirely focused (and limited by the process to focus) on JTC1 member comments. We now have dozens of JTC1 member states who voted against OOXML to "keep the bastards honest". This means it might be useful to keep the GNOME Foundation ECMA membership open for future work. But Jody should not help with the current activity, because that activity can only do harm. ___ 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]
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Please don't be defeatist! We can and should try to make free software read OOXML, because that will be a useful feature -- but that doesn't require defeatism about ODF. 3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies. I'm very disappointed that we're currently headed towards #2, which, IMHO, is probably worse than #1. But it shouldn't be that hard to push towards #3- which really is the least bad of all the options. #3 is basically right, but it suffices to acknowledge that OOXML is used by many users. There is no need to concede the battle to limit its adoption. ___ 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]
> Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software > which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not > be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free > software implementions. This is just your opinion, Richard. Not a fact. Microsoft's goal is well documented in the "Halloween documents", Microsoft internal documents leaked to ESR in 1998 or so, and repeated threats made since then (including this year). The conclusion follows logically, and is confirmed by Microsoft's handling of Word format and OOXML. Competing is a good thing, and in my opinion it's good that Microsoft competes with us. This keeps us sharp and focused. Some people like competition and others don't, but competition is a mistaken model for this contest. Microsoft's goal is to subjugate users while ours is to liberate them. In an ordinary competition, one says "May the best man win", with "best" understood in practical terms, because morally the competitors are by definition equal. In our fight, freedom is best in moral terms, and the motto should be "May freedom win." I wish that freedom did not have such a powerful enemy, and we could simply relax and develop useful software with nothing to worry about. ___ 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]
OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to be a formal standard. We cannot prevent the former. We can prevent the later. A more activist opposition to OOXML is called for. Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is not of that manner. People can try to "make it suck less" but GNOME should not be involved in that, since that makes GNOME "a pawn to weaken ODF." On 11/1/07, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/31/07, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a > > standard. > > OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. > To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East > tomorrow. > > So our options can be: > > 1) pretend it doesn't exist and let Microsoft make it suck completely > for anyone who has to reimplement it- which will include us at some > point. > > 2) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for > reimplementers, and allow our presence at ECMA to be used as a pawn to > weaken ODF. > > 3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for > reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's > abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies. > > I'm very disappointed that we're currently headed towards #2, which, > IMHO, is probably worse than #1. But it shouldn't be that hard to push > towards #3- which really is the least bad of all the options. > > 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]
> Competing is a good thing, and in my opinion it's good that Microsoft > competes with us. This keeps us sharp and focused. If you were sharp and focussed nobody would have joined anything in a way Microsoft could twist. > > Competition has never been a bad thing for mankind. In fact has it been > an excellent invention of nature for all living species. That includes > the free software warriors. Competing is not the same as giving your opponent an automatic weapon and asking them to take potshots at you, which is what the current activity has become. Alan ___ 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 10/31/07, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a > standard. OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. So our options can be: 1) pretend it doesn't exist and let Microsoft make it suck completely for anyone who has to reimplement it- which will include us at some point. 2) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for reimplementers, and allow our presence at ECMA to be used as a pawn to weaken ODF. 3) acknowledge it and at least attempt to make it suck less for reimplementers, but use our presence there to highlight Microsoft's abusive, convicted monopolistic tendencies. I'm very disappointed that we're currently headed towards #2, which, IMHO, is probably worse than #1. But it shouldn't be that hard to push towards #3- which really is the least bad of all the options. Luis > On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > > > > > > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility > > > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the > > > political party you dislike the most to improve their politics. > > > > To me, it's more like going to debates and challenging them. > > > > > > > -- > > > mvh Björn > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ 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]
Not quiet... you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard. On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > > > > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility > > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the > > political party you dislike the most to improve their politics. > > To me, it's more like going to debates and challenging them. > > > > -- > > mvh Björn > -- > 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 > > > -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Wed, 2007-10-31 at 19:58 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Are you seriously suggesting that it's in the best interests of our > users, of GNUmeric users and Abiword users, not to be able to open OOXML > files? I disagree with your statement that most in the community want > the standardisation process to fail - I would suggest that most want the > standardisation effort to be sincere. > > Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software > which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not > be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free > software implementions. This is just your opinion, Richard. Not a fact. On top of that ... If the only argumentation you have is that you think Microsoft will try to defeat free software, then the point you are trying to make is not only obvious but it's also silly to therefore assume that no others will want to cooperate with that competitor. Even within the group of free software developers, there will be such people. And that's fine. Competing is a good thing, and in my opinion it's good that Microsoft competes with us. This keeps us sharp and focused. Competition has never been a bad thing for mankind. In fact has it been an excellent invention of nature for all living species. That includes the free software warriors. -- Philip Van Hoof, software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://www.pvanhoof.be/blog ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
