Re: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
The sell here for Microsoft is very very easy. The small businesses that I do consulting for here in the US all use Microsoft operating systems and office products. Do you talk to them about moving to free software? ___ 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 Mon, 2007-11-26 at 09:49 -0500, Gregory Leblanc wrote: > On Nov 25, 2007 12:39 PM, jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 12:18 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:09PM +, jamie wrote: > > > > > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) > > > Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are > > > playing with a much larger population. > > > > yes and that larger population is using older office versions so MS > > still has a lot of work to do to sell to them an expensive upgrade which > > mostly only contains a prettier interface > > The sell here for Microsoft is very very easy. The small businesses > that I do consulting for here in the US all use Microsoft operating > systems and office products. At this point, when they order a new PC > as either a replacement or an upgrade, they are unable to order > Microsoft Office 2003. Microsoft has enough monopoly control to force > users to change to the new version, simply by making the old one > unavailable. > > The change to Microsoft Office 2007 will happen, and the change to > MOOX will inevitably follow. Its not that simple. From what I see in the company I work for, we tend to still use doc and xls even though we have office 2007 so that others outside our business can still open the docs Lack of backwards compatibility could severely limit use of MOOX where businesses cannot be sure others can utilise it. Doc and xls are simply the lowest common denominator and hence will continue to be used whether you have 2007 or not and MOOX cannot change that for the foreseeable future In your example - this is even more the case! If half your computers have 2007 and the others 2003 you will not be using MOOX surely? jamie ___ 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 25, 2007 12:39 PM, jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 12:18 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:09PM +, jamie wrote: > > > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) > > Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are > > playing with a much larger population. > > yes and that larger population is using older office versions so MS > still has a lot of work to do to sell to them an expensive upgrade which > mostly only contains a prettier interface The sell here for Microsoft is very very easy. The small businesses that I do consulting for here in the US all use Microsoft operating systems and office products. At this point, when they order a new PC as either a replacement or an upgrade, they are unable to order Microsoft Office 2003. Microsoft has enough monopoly control to force users to change to the new version, simply by making the old one unavailable. The change to Microsoft Office 2007 will happen, and the change to MOOX will inevitably follow. Greg ___ 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 Mon, 2007-11-26 at 04:45 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > > > > In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled > > > into this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation > > > backing? > > > > As explained in the statement, the GNOME Foundation joined ECMA as a > > non-profit to allow Jody to continue his work sucking the documentation > > blood from Microsoft's stone. > > I know but that does not answer my question - could jody do this without > foundation backing? No, of course not. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you want to keep fighting evil today." - The Bowler, Mystery Men ___ 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 Mon, 2007-11-26 at 04:45 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled into > > this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation backing? > > As explained in the statement, the GNOME Foundation joined ECMA as a > non-profit to allow Jody to continue his work sucking the documentation > blood from Microsoft's stone. > I know but that does not answer my question - could jody do this without foundation backing? if not then fair enough jamie ___ 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
> In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled into > this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation backing? As explained in the statement, the GNOME Foundation joined ECMA as a non-profit to allow Jody to continue his work sucking the documentation blood from Microsoft's stone. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "It's much harder to just make shit up to get oneself out of a tight plot spot." - William Gibson on writing about the present day ___ 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, 2007-11-25 at 12:18 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:56:09PM +, jamie wrote: > > > > MOOX is most likely to become irrelevant IMO > Not agreed. its debatable and subjective - yes. I reject the notion its a foregone conclusion that MS gets its way however > > > Firstly the de facto standard is doc, xls ... And that will not change > > for a long time > somewhat agreed. MS is not stupid. They learned the leason of > Office97 and will not be repeating it. This is why they released > MOOX support for older versions of office before 2007 came out. > The shiny new features in 2007 (more cols/rows, conditional regions) > are a means to draw people forward, but the old versions are not > locked out of the new files. well my office 2003 cannot read them > > > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) > Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are > playing with a much larger population. yes and that larger population is using older office versions so MS still has a lot of work to do to sell to them an expensive upgrade which mostly only contains a prettier interface I dont think anyone can say which way it will go > > > If companies will continue to use doc and xls formats for > > compatibilities sake then why is it so essential for us to implement > > support for it? > For the same reason that we release win32 builds. The > windows/office population is large enough that even a small > percentage represents alot of bodies. > > > Would it hurt so much to have a moratorium on MOOX dealings til after > > February next year when ISO standard is determined? > > > > Personally I would not want Gnome to touch it with a bargepole but I > > dont have a problem with spec improvement *after* February next year. > > That is precisely the situation we are in. There is no opportunity > to raise new issues after the BRM in Feb. Hence, there is no > involvement. but feb 2008 is for ISO standardisation - I thought you were working with ECMA on their spec? In any event I dont understand why the gnome foundation was pulled into this - cant you do your work with ECMA without foundation backing? jamie ___ 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 12:56:09PM +, jamie wrote: > > MOOX is most likely to become irrelevant IMO Not agreed. > Firstly the de facto standard is doc, xls ... And that will not change > for a long time somewhat agreed. MS is not stupid. They learned the leason of Office97 and will not be repeating it. This is why they released MOOX support for older versions of office before 2007 came out. The shiny new features in 2007 (more cols/rows, conditional regions) are a means to draw people forward, but the old versions are not locked out of the new files. > Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) Which is already comperable to the OO.o installbase. They are playing with a much larger population. > If companies will continue to use doc and xls formats for > compatibilities sake then why is it so essential for us to implement > support for it? For the same reason that we release win32 builds. The windows/office population is large enough that even a small percentage represents alot of bodies. > Would it hurt so much to have a moratorium on MOOX dealings til after > February next year when ISO standard is determined? > > Personally I would not want Gnome to touch it with a bargepole but I > dont have a problem with spec improvement *after* February next year. That is precisely the situation we are in. There is no opportunity to raise new issues after the BRM in Feb. Hence, there is no involvement. Work will continue on XLSX and ODF filters in Gnumeric but that is a different issue IMO. ___ 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 Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:16:48AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe > > here would be better for us in the short term > > Thing is, Microsoft haven't spun it to their advantage. They've mentioned > that Gnumeric is implementing OOXML, but that actually works against them > (due to the complexity of the spec and the completeness of the impl). That's only true for people who understand how writing software works. To a policy maker, writing software is something little gnomes do when he asks IT department for some feature. If it isn't a full implementation, then for him it's okay because we all know software isn't bug-free. They *are* spinning it to their advantage. Give them a hand, they'll rip your arm off. They're not people, they are an entity whose moral duty is to increase shareholder revenue to a maximum. That they send nice guys to shows and talks is only a means to let you off-guard. > They > haven't spun our membership of TC45-M to their advantage, and they won't, > because we're not their friends, and won't react kindly if they do. :-) Not "chalengable" *written forms*... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 37th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ 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
> I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe > here would be better for us in the short term Thing is, Microsoft haven't spun it to their advantage. They've mentioned that Gnumeric is implementing OOXML, but that actually works against them (due to the complexity of the spec and the completeness of the impl). They haven't spun our membership of TC45-M to their advantage, and they won't, because we're not their friends, and won't react kindly if they do. :-) - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "Whoever wrote [the Twisted documentation] uses a vivid and interesting style of prose which triggers pleasure." - Francois Pinard ___ 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 06:37:49PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > 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 would prefer an outcome that could better defend GNOME against the abuse Microsofties are doing all around the world. I've heard them saying the Free Software world supports MS OOXML giving such examples as proof. Now ECMA is leaving in the air the suggestion that GNOME participated in the disposition of comments, because TC45 submitted replies, and they reinforce that TC45 members are GNOME Nobody can ask them to withdraw that statement because they don't outright say it. This is a word play destined to transmit a message that isn't there in syntax, but lives on in semantics. > I still regard summarizing the announcement as 'shooting our own feet > again' as a troll. I regard your troll detection algorith as too harsh, and I suggest a lighter version be applied to your mail sending system ;) Rui -- Wibble. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 37th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ 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, 2007-11-24 at 23:53 -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > 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. yeah it would be nice to keep it civil > > 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. MOOX is most likely to become irrelevant IMO Firstly the de facto standard is doc, xls ... And that will not change for a long time Office 2007 has less than 10% of all office versions (50m out of 500m) and even though the company I work for has given us office 2007 we still transfer everything as doc and xls. So backwards compatibility hampers adoption of MOOX more than anything else People that go on about MS monopoly power forcing standards on people seem to forget that MS biggest competitor is itself and consequently Im very sceptical MOOX will become widespread If companies will continue to use doc and xls formats for compatibilities sake then why is it so essential for us to implement support for it? > > 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. Would it hurt so much to have a moratorium on MOOX dealings til after February next year when ISO standard is determined? Personally I would not want Gnome to touch it with a bargepole but I dont have a problem with spec improvement *after* February next year. I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe here would be better for us in the short term jamie ___ 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 07:26:12AM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: > 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. Placed in a context which implies participation in the disposition of comments. > > 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. I hope the tea was good, since I never intended to suggest that and was actually implying that ECMA was being deliberatily deceiving. :) Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 37th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ 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
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
The page says The 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. 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
> 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
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
> 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. That would appear to be "shooting at own feet" 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" Alan ___ 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 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 01:22:00AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional > > > support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact > > > just took another shot). > > > > Nice trollish statement. > > Maybe, if you want to conviniently forget the «The more you guys keep > playing the neutral game, the more you'll get abused like this.» part... 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. -- 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
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional > > support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact > > just took another shot). > > Nice trollish statement. Maybe, if you want to conviniently forget the «The more you guys keep playing the neutral game, the more you'll get abused like this.» part... Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux! Today is Pungenday, the 36th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ 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 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional > support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact > just took another shot). Nice trollish statement. -- 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
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 Yes, the language is deceptive. Careful readers will notice they don't plainly say it, rather they insinuate it. It's one of the main tactics of lying with the truth. Since the Foundation clearly wouldn't lie about not doing anything since July, here's more evidence of people abusing the role of GNOME Foundation on ECMA's TC45. The more you guys keep playing the neutral game, the more you'll get abused like this. Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's "unconditional support" for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact just took another shot). Rui On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:58:23AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation > === (...) > > This statement is also available on the GNOME website: > > http://www.gnome.org/press/releases/ecma-tc45-statement.html -- Fnord. Today is Pungenday, the 36th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
