Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:23AM -0400, Richard Stallman 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. It's like starting a competing political party and going to the same law library. Is joining ECMA TC45 really like using a library? According to your own words, it is engaged in modifying the OOXML spec: That is inaccurate. Whom do you think will be responding to national body issues ? ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their own issues preemptively for resolution. I gather that such modification intended to bring about the acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) That is almost certainly Microsoft's goal, it is not my goal. We want to improve the spec for different reasons. If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Intentions do matter. Should I also be held accountable if organized crime uses Gnumeric to track it's drug shipments ? -- which would hurt our community substantially. Why ? After all these years of educating people about the non-zero sum nature of software, the benefits of access to the source code. Why are we suddenly preparing to impale ourselves on ODF. How are we hurt, substantially or otherwise, by OOX. It's a better format than the only binary content. It's easier for us to interact with the new format, and that better code for us, and our users. ___ 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, Oct 31, 2007 at 07:58:22PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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. Yes and no. _one_ of microsoft's goals is to default free softwre. However, they are also a business, and are influenced by the requirements of their customers and partners. People that have long wanted access to their data. The other members of the ECMA committee wanted a strong spec for their own use, and worked hard to extract it from MS. While it's certainly possible, even likely that MS has some confunding magic buried in the spec it's also very difficult for them, to act suprised that gnumeric, or abiword implemented the spec, after their employees publicly acknowledge our work. It is useful for free programs to implement OOXML to the extent that it is feasible, but we should do this without aiding Microsoft to gain official approval for a 6000-page incomplete specification of a patented format. The spec is certainly large, and there are areas that need more documentation. However, exactly the same holds true for ODF. The real differentiator is OO.o. The ODF spec has gaping holes that can only be plugged by reading OO.o code. That is an endorsement of free software, not ODF. To the extent that we succeed in resisting Microsoft's current method of attack, it will naturally try another. It makes no sense to encourage them to stick with their current method by letting them defeat us with it. That depends on how you view OOX. Having an official standard for OOX (the current ECMA or a potential ISO) hoists MS by it's own petard. They now need to conform to that spec, and to implement it well. Witness the recent humour when their 'calcChain' implementation had very public issues. The playing field is suddenly alot more equal, and we can rescue the data out of their files without having to guess the format. ___ 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 11/1/07, Andy Tai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and (2) that anyone actually thinks GNOME's presence one way or the other (especially if messaged correctly) actually has an impact on it becoming a formal standard. But I'm not holding my breath. 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. I agree that if GNOME is involved, GNOME should be taking every opportunity to prevent ratification of the standard. (I agree that Microsoft certainly appears not to have been bound by good faith in the ratification process, so we should feel no reciprocal obligation.) I'm certainly not an expert in ECMA/ISO processes- I'd much appreciate it if Jody could explain what the situation is there. Where are we in the process? What stands between the spec and ratification? If we stay in the process, do we get a chance to vote against ratification? Or is our presence a defacto stamp of approval? 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. No. Ratification may be a zero-sum game, and I agree we need to avoid that as much as possible, but improving the spec that we will inevitably have to use is not a zero-sum game. 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]
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:30PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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. That is partially true, Which is why I am not participating currently. It was not true in the run up to the ISO fast track vote, when the ECMA TC was still reviewing issue that Novell and I had reported, that they will submit at the BRM with the same standing as a national body. 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. That is a reasonable characterization of my current role. ___ 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 Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:08:00PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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. How is that defeatism about ODF ? ODF is not even mentioned. As with so many other situations this is not a zero sum game. If our code/systems/formats are better people will use them. We weaken ourselves by making this an either or comparison between OOX and ODF. It is only by forcing that dichotomy that we set ourselves up for problems when MS eventually gets OOX through ISO. ___ 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 Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:11:07AM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: 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. That is a dubious proposition. MS has failed to get fast track acceptance. That delays them, little more. 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. I have a significant problem with the ethics of that. Being on a standardization committee requires good faith participation. To join with the intent of sabotage is unacceptable. Indeed that is one of the few areas even MS has not yet descended to. They could easily have joined ODF, or had their minions attack it. 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. There are many many levels to disagree on here. - We are no one's pawn. MS has not tried to control our actions in anyway. - Does our participation does not materially impact OOX adoption. - ODF should be judged exactly the same way as free software. If it is beneficial, people will use it. Neither GNOME nor KDE benefits when our partisans attack the other project. We should be spending our time improving ODF, or our filters, rather than wasting it trying to defeat MS. ___ 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 Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: 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. +1 vote for Luis as word smith par excellance. Not only is that clear, it's also completely true. ___ 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, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:33:25PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: you don't join ECMA TC45 to prevent OOXML from becoming a standard. - I fail to see how we have the power to materially manipulate the ISO process. - It is already an ECMA standard. - More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by virtue of MS's dominant market position. Our choices here seem fairly simple 1) Interact with a documented spec with holes 2) Interact with a documented spec with fewer holes Can ODF one day be the all singing all dancing holy grail of interoperability ? One day maybe, but that is not today, or even this decade. Given it's development tragectory it has about as much chance of bringing world peace. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Luis Villa I'm hesitant to declare it a failure until I see more evidence that delegation has been tried and failed. For example, I could do this sort of thing without being on the board at all- no need to appoint me to the board. But frankly I have not felt like my attempts to help out have been invited, much less encouraged. I have personally tried, and certainly taken legal issues to legal-private as a matter of delegation (and only received one response, btw), For what it is worth I have exactly zero mails from you to legal-private in my archives; I see two that went to legal-list[1] while I was moving and preparing for one of the more stressful weeks of my life.[2] Given that Anne is the coordinator for the list, you might ask her why it was not followed up on. One of my goals if/when I become leader of the legal work will be to ensure that every such thing is followed up on by *someone*, be it me, one of our pro-bono counsels, or other interested volunteers. I certainly don't want to do it all myself, nor am I qualified to do so, but I will work my ass off to make sure that I don't block or squander the work of others, and that if for some reason the work *can't* be done, the board is at least told promptly of that. but I think there is an issue of... domain-specific responsibility... involved that has not created or encouraged an active team around legal work. That's a bummer, and I think the extreme business of other Board members has contributed to no one else picking up that ball. I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago. I knew I was strapped, but I specifically said that if no one else could do it, I could do it. The board turned me down, but yet, no one else has apparently done it, and no one reached out to me to say 'hey, we realize we screwed up and no one can do this, can you help out again?' That was intensely frustrating to me. Luis [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/legal-list/2007-August/msg8.html [2] http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/08/14/back-in-new-york/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
quote who=Luis Villa I volunteered to take leadership on this position months ago. We chose to have a Board member as liaison to the Legal team, which was very clearly delegated the responsibility to provide legal support and advice to the Foundation. This is the same model as other teams, but as the legal team is new and doesn't have a well-defined leadership/sustainability model (as, say, the release team does), it could do with a lot more shepherding. It was only clear to us very recently that the current liaison was not doing this effectively. The only reason it became clear to us is that our own goals were not being met, not as a result of feedback from the legal team itself. So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a productive way of fixing the problem. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 Creative thinkers make many false starts, and continually waver between unmanageable fantasies and systematic attack. - Harry Hepner ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: board [was Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]]
So, yes, I totally understand your position, but I think that falling back on unsympathetic, dramatic criticism of the Board and ultimatums is not a productive way of fixing the problem. unsympathetic, dramatic criticism would be telling it as it is of the Board would be blaming Jeff ultimatums has me baffled given all the Luis said about getting the job done whatever it took. Can you translate that particular bit of newspeak Jeff, as I can't work out how to make sense of your comments with respect to Luis offer. 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 Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:04:14PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: On 10/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:41 -0700, Andy Tai wrote: What was done is done. For the future... The idea and board's decision was transcribed in board meeting minutes and sent to this least a few months ago. A mild discussion started and there was no strong opposition to the membership. I don't think just because a fool flamed us makes that decision any different. We're not supporting OOXML. The membership can still push for a change from not supporting to actively opposing given the debate now is more active. What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ? - Asking frivolous questions ? - Writing bad documentation ? - Starting flame wars on the mailing list ? It's easy to see how one can be a productive member of the TC with some control over what areas to enhance. It's also not difficult to be irrelevant, eg the situation while issues are being resolved. I do not see how one can ethically be a member of the group and attempt to sabotage it. The middle road seems like the best course of action. We'll assist in the areas that are mutually beneficial, and abstain in other areas. ___ 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, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:52:51PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can bet Microsoft is spinning around that open source likes OOXML thanks to that. People can spin things however they'd like. I'll implement any file format users request. If people are comfortable citing Gnumeric for ODF, they can cite it for OOX too. At the end of the day, if people use Gnumeric, or free software, we've won. Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely). Spoken like a non-spreadsheet user. My experience suggests exactly the opposite. Users are a lot more forgiving of kerning differences than they are of calculating different answers. Having worked on filters for both formats, I'll trust my judgement over the various position papers with obvious biases littering the net. Both formats need work, the black and white characterization of ODF == good OOX == bad does not fit what I've seen while implementing things. Naturally, Gnumeric follows the design of Excel, which follows the design of it's file format, so its structure and logic are naturally reflected in a document format which is designed to reflect status quo. I'd be surprised if it happened otherwise! Neither format has been without it's irritations. We've certainly saved some time by reusing code from the XLS filter, but that is far from the only reason for the disparity. I've just wasted part of this week trying to fix our ODF chart importer. ODF helpfully assigns data implicitly, without detailing how things fit together in the data. chart:plot-area table:cell-range-address=Sheet1.$B$1:.$C$4 ... chart:series ... chart:domain/ /chart:series Minimal information on whether B goes into X or Y. Start adding multiple series into 1 plot and things get complicated quickly. To make things even more difficult, the entire approach is wrong. It does not allow for calculated content, or inline arrays. Data validation is specified is another area where implementation could have been simple, had ODF used stock xml. Instead it decided to store the spec as some sort of magic formula string that requires yet another parser. But you're actually advocating it become a standard as it is... I am advocating that people use free software, and don't see that I have any control over whether OOX becomes an ISO standard for MS file formats or not. I would personally not care much if the only problem between ODF and OOXML were of being two standards for the same target. That is precisely what I would have a problem with. If MS tried to claim that OOX was 'the one true office format', or tried to add support for ODF extensions and 'harmonise' the specs I'd be up in arms. Thankfully they are not, and more importantly the politics of the situation have forced them to explicitly state the opposite. Contrary to the way this is being portrayed, this is a win win situation for free software. Either we get more docs and MS is constrained from embracing and extending their standard. Or MS offers up even better documentation and tries again ___ 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, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: | | 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. From above, I don't see how the community was informed that we would support someone to discuss OOXML. I noted that we joined ECMA (I viewed it as freedesktop 'make standards' work).. but I am now really sorry I missed the rest of the thread. My initial reaction to the article ranged from I never heard that we have a representative there -- it is not true to wtf wasn't this mentioned somewhere. That is quite unfortunate. I'm sorry for the miscommunication. It was not my intent to obfuscate the issue. Being part of the process immerses one in a cornucopia of acronyms. After a while they become part of the scenery. ECMA = European Computer Manufacturers Association http://www.ecma-international.org An umbrella organisation for creating standards. TC45 = Technical Committee number 45 of ECMA Responsible for the specification of Microsoft's XML based file format which they've name 'Office Open XML' or OOX/OOXML. That name irritates the piss out of me, and I prefer the more accurate 'Microsoft Office Open XML' or MOOX. On the other hand it makes for lots of tongue twisting fun as MS reps end up saying Open Office XML frequently. After 1.5 years of work on the _documentation_ (not the content) of the new MS format the committee sent a draft to the ECMA general assembly. ECMA-376 = the id given to the draft of TC45's work that was approved by the ECMA general assembly and sent onwards to ISO for consideration on 'Fast Track' acceptance which would have potentially made it an official standard with less review than most standards. ISO = International Standards Organisation The mother of all standards umbrellas. Made up of various 'National Bodies' (NBs) and of few organisations. ISO/IEC DIS 29500 : The name given to ECMA-376 OASIS = Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php Yet another umbrella organisation. This one is responsible to mentoring ODF (I assume you know that one :-) History In Mar of 2005 Novell allowed me to join this TC to help evaluate MOOX, and if possible to request enough information to allow it to be implemented if desired. Novell was already a corporate member of ECMA which also hosts the C# and javascript (aka ecmascript) specs. At the same time I was also a member of the ODF committee, and the ODF Formula subcommittee. I ended up acting as an informal liaison between the organisations but neither was especially interested in harmonisation, or sharing. The initial TC45 meetings were somewhat tentative. MS was worried that we had join to sabotage or delay the standardisation effort. We were worried that MS would not answer our questions and produce a useless spec. As a test I wrote an initial importer for Gnumeric on the flight to the first meeting I attended (about 8 hours incl time in the hotel), and demoed it (content, formulas, formatting). Wrote ultra-basic exporter on the flight home (not formatting). Following this the mistrust on both sides embed somewhat and MS was willing to improve the documentation in almost all of the areas we asked about. I added more bells to the Gnumeric importer as a hobby, and used that to send more information requests back to the TC for submission to MS. In the end on the order of 200 or so issues were filed. + Lots of additional detail. Some of which applied to the legacy binary formats too (eg how to measure column widths). - Very little structural change to facilitate interop. Eg using booleans vs enums, or string ids vs integer versioning. When the TC sent the spec on to the ECMA general assembly back in Sept 2006, work froze for several months leaving a few unanswered issues. In that time Novell began MOOX filters for OO.o and began to generate new questions. I continued my work in Gnumeric itermitently and produced a few more issues. We had been assured when things froze the there would be time to re-open the issue list later. After some heated debate the new issues were accepted just before I stopped work with Novell. At my request GNOME joined ECMA last June as a non-profit member. There are no monetary costs for non-profit members, but they do not have a formal vote in committee. I was able to follow up on some of the remaining issues before the ISO fast track vote ended internal discussion, and the work flow focused entirely on
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
You said: OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. The defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence says it is not ODF. It is only by forcing that dichotomy that we set ourselves up for problems when MS eventually gets OOX through ISO. Both of those statements are defeatist predictions about resistance to ISO approval of OOXML. Defeatist predictions hurt our cause, because they can act as self-fulfilling prophesies. That's why You can't win, so don't try to resist is a standard form of propaganda for aggressors. If we believe those claims, we may make less effort to resist, and that can turn victory into defeat. Nobody really knows the future, so any statement about what ISO will decide is speculation. Would you please refrain from asserting that we will lose? ___ 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]
If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Intentions do matter. Intentions do matter, especially in influencing others. But if you don't state your intentions clearly, others will deduce them from your actions. Proponent of OOXML have imputed to the GNOME Foundation, based on its participation in ECMA, a general support for OOXML and its use, including support for its adoption by ISO. This is why the GNOME Foundation should make a clear statement that it has no wish to encourage the use of OOXML, and that it opposes adoption of OOXML as an ISO standard. Clearly stating these intentions will make it harder to for others to make claims of opposite intentions. Should I also be held accountable if organized crime uses Gnumeric to track [its] drug shipments ? Addictive drugs are a good analogy with OOXML, since both tend to lead people to develop a permanent dependency that is hard to throw off. However, the rest of the situations are not analogous. The ECMA committee has explicitly undertaken to make OOXML an ISO standard. If Gnumeric had explicitly undertaken to facilitate the sale of addictive drugs, that would be analogous. After all these years of educating people about the non-zero sum nature of software, the benefits of access to the source code. Why are we suddenly preparing to impale ourselves on ODF. I've spent 24 years teaching software users to demand the freedom to share and change software. I support use of ODF and oppose adoption of OOXML because that is good for the cause of freedom. Use of ODF tends to encourage use of OpenOffice, which is free software. Use of OOXML tends to encourage use of Microsoft's proprietary software. We can and should try to implement it in free software, but we should also try to discourage people from using it at all. Even partial success at discouraging it aids our cause. 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. That is partially true, Which is why I am not participating currently. Thank you. If you make a public commitment to stay out of the activity of satisfying ISO, and to stay inactive in the committee while its focus is on satisfying ISO, that will show that you're not helping the standardization of OOXML. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
