Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - More importantly it is already a de-facto standard by virtue of MS's dominant market position. MS's next file formats might be widely used, but it's worth noting that MS are not using the ECMA approved OOXML. They're using a slightly different format. Their most recent word processor does not display OOXML documents correctly. They have also said they will walk away from OOXML if ISO changes it significantly, so they may never try to implement it. -- Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org ___ 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=Quim Gil Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have been invested much better. I think that's probably true, but I strongly disagree with your examples. I also think that with such high expectations, we can beat ourselves up pretty badly even when we do great things. What follows on from that is bitterness, defensiveness, and a dysfunctional group of people. We could have done a lot better with debriefs and general meeting conversation to avoid some of this. What is left from the 10th anniversary? Imagine if some of that time would have been put in a Boston Summit planning. I've explained this a few times now, but I'll do it again here: The Board could not have done significantly more about the Boston Summit to avoid or avert the crisis we had. It's that simple. Due to unrepresentative and ill informed noise on board-list, it has been turned into a much bigger issue that it ever was. At precisely the time when the Boston Summit was ready to announce and work could begin on the (much more interesting) detail of catering, what we were going to do, how we were going to run it, and calling for local volunteers to run the show, our apparently booked venue pulled the plug. This started a lengthy period of going through other channels to get the venue back, trying for a different venue with the same organisation, looking at different dates and hosts, and finally, a last-minute splurge on a venue as we were down to the wire and couldn't feasibly change the dates. It was not a lack of time, planning or local volunteers that set off this chain of events... It was a *horribly* timed disappearance of the most important piece of the Summit's organisational puzzle: The venue. If there's no venue, there's no Summit. Of course, massive thanks go to Zana and Owen for pulling it all together for a very successful Summit despite the roadblocks and challenges. In the end, the Board only received one complaint about the Summit, and that was before it was held, and by someone who did not go to it. (If anyone *does* have complaints about the Summit, please mail the Board!) I am more (personally) disappointed with the 10th anniversary execution and results than those of the Boston Summit. How much time did we put in aligning the election period with GUADEC? Imagine if instead we had been dealing with this poisoned OOXML discussion. It took *one* Board member's time and leadership to pursue the term length bylaws change (in addition to discussion among members and the time of the membership committee to run the vote). This is a very important and worthy change, which will have a positive impact from 2009 onward - that's a long time away, but we had to change it now or it would languish until the 2010 term! Given that this has come up nearly every term I've been on the Board, I regard actual execution on this issue as a great success of this term. It would have taken *one* Board member's time (and a bit of review) to ship a timely announcement and clarification when we joined ECMA and TC45-M. It would have created an outburst itself, with mildly different properties to what we're experiencing now -- unless we had done a *spectacular* job with the messaging, it would've been GNOME announces support for OOXML. I have been dealing with the shrill voices for days now, so I might sound a bit rankled on this front. ;-) Different people were responsible for these tasks, there was no substantial cross-over in time or topic, so they're basically incomparable. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ And the only time I met George W Bush, he said to me, 'Hey Mike! Go find real work.' Of all people! - Michael Moore ___ 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: 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. I'm not so sure... http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aodt = almost 100.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Adocx = almost 1.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aods = over 18.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Axlsx = over 200 hits Best, Rui ___ 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 Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 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. Unfortunately my uses of spreadsheet go more into kerning than calculus, but to care about calculus and not care about correctness is hipocrisy of those users (even if they don't mean it because they simply are ignorant about the many problems :) ) 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. Let's fight to get it fixed when the time to discuss the next version of ODF comes up, shall we? I hope we can have your dedication as well :) 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. But you do have a certain ammount of control on how GNOME is perceived as supporting/not supporting that it becomes a standard. 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. How could something like that be prevented? Their monopoly is sustained precisely on embracing and extending. Or MS offers up even better documentation and tries again Even better implies it's currently good. It's not. And its this form of expressions that portrays the support of the GNOME Foundation for OOXML when you represent it. You can't blame people who perceive you as a supporter of OOXML if you're this careless :) Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 15th 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:19:23AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 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. Current Sub Committe 34 of ISO/JTC1 is currently stopped because the new P-member countries only voted for MS-OOXML and don't bother to vote about anything else, so far. Three votes have already been stalled thanks to strange vote apathy: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0902.htm http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0909.htm http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0910.htm What does SC-34 also control? RELAX NG, Schematron, Topic Maps, ODF, PDF... Considering evidence was found that they bought members in Sweden, that they forged the support of the Andaluzan Regional Government, etc... I'd pretty much say they not only descended, but are actively seeking to go deeper than the Mariana Trench. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Boomtime, the 15th 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board may not be the case now. Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff. Would you mind educating me on what's changed, please? Perhaps as a foundation member who put a lot of time over two terms into the hiring process I might have something to offer the decision making process? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [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]
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. If supporters of OOXML are citing GNOME's apparent support, they must think that will help them. If they are right, denying such support in a clear enough way that they cannot pretend it exists will hamper them. If they are wrong, this statement won't make any difference; but it won't cost us anything but a little work. It would be a mistake to take for granted they are wrong. They know their audience, and they are not fools. So let's deny them this line of argument. Even a small chance of success justifies such an easy action. ___ 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]
That is a stretch. It's undeniably that improvements made in MOOX at my request will tangentially facilitate ISO acceptance. 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. Excellent. A formal statement from the GNOME Foundation to that effect will let everyone know that no help towards OOXML as an ISO standard is coming from you. That's why I think it solves the problem. We could just as easily decry IBM's Rob Weir for presenting weaknesses in drafts of MOOX. The TC definitely reviewed his findings and added clarifying documentation. I agree, and I think that we should call on IBM also to stay out of the process while it is aimed at trying to make OOXML an ISO standard. Nobody should work on that. Once the GNOME Foundation has made a strong statement, that will help us challenge others to follow its lead. ___ 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=Dave Neary Jeff Waugh wrote: Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board may not be the case now. Way to make a guy feel like his opinion is worth something Jeff. Huh? Of course your opinion is worth something, but the issue is not static. Would you mind educating me on what's changed, please? Perhaps as a foundation member who put a lot of time over two terms into the hiring process I might have something to offer the decision making process? I explained it in that email. If something wasn't clear or you need further explanation, let me know what it is. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ I've been thinking: I get way too many pieces of e-mail, about 60 a day. - Microserfs ___ 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 Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:23PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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. That is a very good point Richard. I agree completely, and would like to expand on it. a) MOOX is certain to be _A_ defacto standard. The MS Office market share determines that. b) It may become _A_ standard depending on the results from ISO. c) It can never become _THE_ standard. In order to be considered by ISO MS is being forced to argue that MOOX and ODF standardise different things. They are publicly and loudly explaining that MOOX is the MS Office file format. I am strongly opposed to MOOX becoming _THE_ standard. The days of MS as the only game in town are over. ___ 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]]
will believe it. Not a great way to encourage respectful discussion on this list, Nor is putting in strange references to ultimatums off private lists. That makes it very hard to follow, so thanks for explaining where it came from. As for trashing you, it seems any comment about the boards actions or activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt. Alan ___ 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=Alan Cox As for trashing you, it seems any comment about the boards actions or activities that is the slighest bit negative or in disagreement with yourself you take as a personal insult and follow up in flowery language attempting to supress the dissent by acting hurt. I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive. Given that it wasn't particularly relevant to myself (but highly relevant to my corporate responsibility with the Board), your attempts to discredit me and my comments are similarly inappropriate and unproductive. I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive way to contribute to the community. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Instead you're doing circle jerks with the Care Bears of Censorship. - Siduri on Slashdot ___ 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]]
I pointed out behaviour that I thought was inappropriate and unproductive. So did I ... I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct So do I ... ___ 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]]
Le dimanche 04 novembre 2007 à 01:27 +1100, Jeff Waugh a écrit : I suggest you take a gander at the Code of Conduct, and figure a more constructive way to contribute to the community. Wow .. implying Alan Cox isn't a good contributor to the community sounds weird. ___ 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 Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:01:04PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:53:15PM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: | ECMA = European Computer Manufacturers Association http://www.ecma-international.org An umbrella organisation for creating standards. The name is now Ecma International. Ecma spelled like this, and meaning nothing. The old name of the organisation is as you described it. ISO = International Standards Organisation Well, the official nme is International Organization for Standardization. OASIS = Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php Yet another umbrella organisation. I was not aware that it is an umbrella organization. How? What are the associations that are members of OASIS? Best regards keld ___ 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]
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 ? That list suggests another approach: we could invent silly straw men and pretend that they came from the OOXML team. ;-! However, I think a frank and sober statement from the GNOME Foundation would be better. ___ 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]]
Hi, Things I have learned during this time at the board: 1 - Voting busy candidates is risky if not counterproductive. 2 - Running for election when you are busy is risky if not counterproductive. 3 - Seven members is what you need to run efficiently a board. 4 - Even a board of busy members can be a good board, but needs to concentrate on the essentials. 5 - You concentrate on the essentials by *not doing* other things, either because you delegate, you drop or you don't even start new things. 6 - It is difficult to point out publicly and even internally when something/someone is wrong concentrating on the essentials, delegating, dropping, starting new things. We are (too?) respectful with each other. In fact 6 is more complex: you can point when you are not inside, if you are inside you can't point. Because you are outside you don't have all facts, which makes difficult to point accurately, effectively. Because you are inside you have more facts, but this makes difficult to point issues because you put someone and yourself in evidence. Breaking respect in exchange of efficiency isn't easy - probably not even appropriate in an organization of volunteers. Full stop. If Luis runs for election I'll vote him, no doubt about this. He has been pinging and pushing on legal matters as a champion. I feel that we at the board have failed integrating his voluntarism in a delegation. I still wonder what has failed and why though. All the elements were in place: a Legal area in the board with 2 people responsible, public and private mailing list, relatively regular contact with lawyers and people around legal matters, regular presence of legal related topics in the board meetings and agenda... Should I make a conclusion I would probably end up thinking that personal differences had more weight than they should, but who knows. The board hasn't been proactive enough delegating again, that's my feeling. Because we don't want to delegate? I don't think so. The problem starts when people is lacking time to assume the most basic responsibilities and feels overwhelmed only to follow the basic routines. If you have been into the Art of Delegating before you know the paradox: in theory delegating will let you do more things in less time, in practice the process of delegating takes time in itself - which is a trap when people feel like not having time. Is the 7 member board the root of the problem? I strongly disagree. I think the current board of 7 has been extremely efficient in the first half of the year considering the total amount of personal time invested. I bet a board of more people couldn't beat that. The second half is being more dramatic,. and it is painful to reckon that many deep issues could have been avoided or at least dealt with more properly if all the board members could have been around with some time available for collaboration and quick response. Also, looking backwards we also see that our time and issues could have been invested much better. What is left from the 10th anniversary? Imagine if some of that time would have been put in a Boston Summit planning. How much time did we put in aligning the election period with GUADEC? Imagine if instead we had been dealing with this poisoned OOXML discussion. Of course this is easy to say now, the problem is always to foresee things before they happen. This is an art that can be better performed having more time and calm in our minds, btw. And even if you foresee issues there is still that problem of being difficult to point them out without being not as respectful as we use to be. -- Quim Gil /// http://flors.wordpress.com ___ 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 Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:34PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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. That is a stretch. It's undeniably that improvements made in MOOX at my request will tangentially facilitate ISO acceptance. However, as I've explained intent matters. We could just as easily decry IBM's Rob Weir for presenting weaknesses in drafts of MOOX. The TC definitely reviewed his findings and added clarifying documentation. 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. Excellent. The board met on Thursday, and will produce a more official statement in the coming days. ___ 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 Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: 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 ? That list suggests another approach: we could invent silly straw men and pretend that they came from the OOXML team. ;-! Actually I wasn't being rhetorical, or frivolous there. After hearing why I joined ECMA TC45, and that participation had ceased until it would be useful to rejoin. The claim was made that I was poorly representing GNOME by not 'actively opposing' the committees efforts. I do not see how to ethically do that. The boundary of my comfort zone would be making issues I find personally public. That's about as 'active' as my opposition is going to get. Even that comes at a price. Trawling through the spec randomly looking for garbage is mind bogglingly boring. IBM had better have been paying Rob Weir, and his team, good money. That can not have been fun work. The approach that has worked for me has been to implement things, and see what falls out. On the other hand it feels as if merely committing new code in the excel plugin would end up on slashdot at this point. ___ 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 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
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
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.) If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML -- which would hurt our community substantially. If the GNOME Foundation is to be represented in on the ECMA committee, it should explicitly counteract that backfire effect by doing something else. One way to do so is by publishing a statement, addressed to all countries that vote in ISO, asking them to vote against any and all versions of OOXML as a standard. ___ 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 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]
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]
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]
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 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]
Hi Bjorn, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: On 10/31/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is uncomfortable acting as a representative of the foundation in a role that many members do not agree should exist. My private preferences should not negatively impact the foundation, or go against the will of the majority of members. A representative should be representative of the people he or she is representing. Can you be representative if your personal opinion is diametrically opposite to the one you are representing? I mean, you are doing a really great technical job improving OOXML while most in the community really want the standardization process to fail. 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. I believe I understand Microsoft's motivation for standardisation - get around all those pesky governments public bodies insisting on open standards for information exchange. If that is the motivation, then I also want the ECMA to decline the standard. This may be our last chance for years to get comprehensive documentation of the file format out of MS. If ECMA standardisation does not go through, then Microsoft have nothing to gain by publishing more more information about its formats. Cheers, Dave. PS. On a point of information (as we used to say in the debating society), Jody no longer works for Novell. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
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 am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again. If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem, but I'd like to think I would have at least screamed very loud. That's rocking good news. More warm bodies on the Board with time to spare (or a very particular focus, plus the usual oversight and representation) is a very welcome thing, and it would be great to have you on the Board again. A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider adding a couple of people to the Board. 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. Or to put it another way- I'm running because delegation appears to have failed, not because the 7-person board has failed. So much for being away for five years. :-) I never said five, I said three. ;) 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]
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 100% Pure Slashdot Wisdom: Source code gives a whole new meaning to free software. -- 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]
quote who=Luis Villa I am frustrated, and so I will be running for the board again. If elected, my almost-exclusive focus will be handling legal and secretarial issues for the board. So I can't guarantee that my being on the board would necessarily have prevented this particular problem, but I'd like to think I would have at least screamed very loud. That's rocking good news. More warm bodies on the Board with time to spare (or a very particular focus, plus the usual oversight and representation) is a very welcome thing, and it would be great to have you on the Board again. A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider adding a couple of people to the Board. So much for being away for five years. :-) - 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]
quote who=Andy Tai Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely willing to do so. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 The Motif interface, with chunkier controls, felt more like a ghetto blaster. - Liam Quin ___ 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'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), 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. (Sorry I'm not being more specific, but I have to figure out if/how I can be during this election cycle.) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Linux continues to have almost as much soul as James Brown. - Forrest Cook, LWN ___ 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 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: Are you also Novell's representative on TC 45 if I may ask? Jody no longer works for Novell. Novell has its own representative on TC-45. Hub ___ 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]
Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: A related issue: I think we've pretty much shown that the seven person Board thing is a bit of a failure. Even if you're not elected or didn't run, we could appoint you to the Board for this function. :-) We ought to consider adding a couple of people to the Board. What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake, and I would urge the next board to invest financially in the hiring of someone. The way we've been doing it (searching personal networks + low-key announcements on blogs mailing lists) isn't going to get it done. A headhunter/agency who will place ads, screen candidates and get us a qualified person in 3 to 6 months is a worthwhile investment. I agree that expecting a 7 person volunteer board to take care of the administration and day to day running of the foundation is asking too much. I also believe that doing so of a 9 person volunteer board would be asking too much. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [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 6/10/07, Jody Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. (tangential) If I recall correctly, now that Gnome is a member organization of the ECMA, we can put people on committees without paying any more for each person. Jody is absolutely qualified to take part in discussions about the OOXML spreadsheet format. But what about the other formats? If it's beneficial for us to be on this committee to scrutinize the specification, then surely it would be beneficial to have somebody scrutinize the word processor bits. -- Shaun ___ 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=Dave Neary What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake It has actually been a very helpful learning experience -- understanding what the purpose of that role should be, by grokking the gaps. It's less obvious what that role ought to be now that we're so far away from the Executive Director assumption. I agree that expecting a 7 person volunteer board to take care of the administration and day to day running of the foundation is asking too much. It would be, but luckily, that's not the situation we're in. We have a very good part time administrator in Zana, who has done a fantastic job picking up the pieces of our previous administrative mess. It's very easy to simplify this issue, and I think it's a mistake to do so. Defining the role and hiring someone for it has been and will continue to be a very tricky task. We have to be very comfortable choosing between large target and small target goals. Just hiring for an Executive Director role would put us firmly in the small target zone, which is probably not the right thing to do. I don't even think it's necessary. Things change -- what was taken for granted while you were on the Board may not be the case now. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 The Unix Way: Everything is a file. The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem. ___ 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 15:15 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: What we've shown is not having a full-time director has been a mistake, and I would urge the next board to invest financially in the hiring of someone. Perhaps you could sweet talk some corporation to lend/sponsor some desirable person to be the fulltime executive director of the GNOME Foundation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_director -- George (gk4) ___ 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 had been possible I would have done it that way, and avoided the political fallout for GNOME. Unfortunately, there is no provision for individual members of ECMA. On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:12:26PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote: Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. ___ 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]
What was done is done. For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format (and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many people in the free software/FOSS community are working hard to try to prevent the OOXML from becoming a standard. Technical issues are just that; anyone can contribute to the specs if it is his/her interests. It should be fair to say the majority of the people in the community opposes making OOXML the standard document format. Novell can sponsor Jody even if he is a former employee. On 10/31/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Andy Tai Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. His involvement is facilitated by our membership of ECMA. We were entirely willing to do so. - Jeff ___ 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=Andy Tai For the future the board should really consider not sponsoring anyone to work on the OOXML format No one was sponsored to work on the OOXML format. (and withdraw existing involvement on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation), as many people in the free software/FOSS community are working hard to try to prevent the OOXML from becoming a standard. We're not working towards ISO standardisation of OOXML. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. - Bruce Schneier ___ 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 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their money and time for two and half weeks calling me a liar, on blogs and even on a newspaper here (but this last part didn't go so well for them since I invoked the right of reply and totally shattered their accusation). No wonder, given that you are always very aggressive in discussions. -- 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 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 ___ 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 04:18:38PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod 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. You mean, like a republican into a debate with ten democrats? Or vice-versa? If that's your meaning of going to debates I agree. Rui -- Or not. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12nd 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:14:11PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their money and time for two and half weeks calling me a liar, on blogs and even on a newspaper here (but this last part didn't go so well for them since I invoked the right of reply and totally shattered their accusation). No wonder, given that you are always very aggressive in discussions. No, I merely wrote things down like: they decided to limit participation to 20 entities for lack of space but the room could handle almost 30 people and the host entity has an auditorium which it refused to use. Or Microsoft [the president of the TC] tried twice to shut me up but only succeeded once (and he did that to another oppositor), or Microsoft expert advising the usage of a ruler to know how to make autoSpaceLikeWord95 (where do you buy Word95 today, BTW?), etc... What I wonder is why such a lowlife like me deserves to be the target of Microsoft's paid bloggers... Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12nd 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted. Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything. That statement is false. Are you using ddate? :) parse error:1:huh ? Install ddate and play with ddate +% (sometimes it's really funny) :) The SpreadsheetML rep may not have been thrilled with my questions, but the majority were answered. More people could have joined ECMA, or participated in the ISO review process constructively had they wanted to. ECMA is out of the board right now, since it's JTC1 who makes changes and not ECMA. 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. AFAICT ECMA will be inquired, but the changes will not be decided by ECMA. JTC1 can do things like: is there a way to define autoSpaceLikeWord95? No? Then that tag is out. or even dates must now support at least double double int seconds since 1970 (which would be worse but just for the sake of an example). All ECMA could do at that point is remove the proposal. Who are you insinuating about a not making a constructive process at ISO? Some of the corporate manipulation of national bodies has been quite disturbing. If ODF had been subjected to a fraction of this response it would never have passed. You Bet! Fortuantely ODF had interoperability in mind, and many people actually participated in it's long development. Are you conscious that SC-34 is virtually stopped because the Microsoft stoogies who have the obligation to vote do not vote on issues that are not Microsoft related? Yes. As per usual parts of MS have managed to descend into the gutter. However, that does not mean that the FLOSS community should follow suit. Fortunately it hasn't. 7 of the countries which upgraded to P voted YES on OOXML and nothing else, the 8th abstained (and nothing else so far, IIRC). 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). It's statements like some of yours that are detrimental, but nothing that you can't fix by making a better job for the community, if you can, of course, since nobody demands of you to loose family time, etc... Shall I find a convenient bus to walk in front of :-) Hope not, too many Free Software developers have died recently (just recently Itojun)... 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! My calculus is simple. - At least one person will use OOX - That person may want to use free software at some point - If we can support their files they will use free software again. - Therefore we should implement filters - Documentation makes filters easier What kind of 'making a better job for the community' do you envision ? My opinion the best thing the community can do is to get interested domain experts onto the TCs and get better docs. If you were saying «we already did a terrific job making it be as documented as it is, but it still needs more», nothing to point at you. AFAICT you did some good work there. But you're actually advocating it become a standard as it is... I would personally not care much if the only problem between ODF and OOXML were of being two standards for the same target, but Microsoft is procuring ways to go around those pesky governments who
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:17:05PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: 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 current reaction should not be seen as a consequence of bad publicity due to that article. Just quoting the original text from the notes (copy/paste from Luis): | 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. 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. -- Regards, Olav ___ 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]
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. I hope it will displease those that seek to cite the GNOME Foundation to advocate greater use of OOXML. ___ 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]
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. 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. This may be our last chance for years to get comprehensive documentation of the file format out of MS. If ECMA standardisation does not go through, then Microsoft have nothing to gain by publishing more more information about its formats. 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. I doubt that Microsoft can succeed again with secret formats. The strong pressure for open standards is the reason why Microsoft now pretends to offer one. If Microsoft has to go in the face of that pressure, it will face hard going. ___ 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]
I look forward to further aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies, especially ones so obvious in hindsight, as it always improves motivation So you can do PR some of the time then Jeff aggravated public shaming of past incompetencies I have another word for that newspeak ... Accountability and encourages members to run for election. I hope it does. If they believe the board isn't doing the job as well as they could... 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 Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted. Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything. It's not as good as having the source code to OO.o there to read yourself (which is why free software will eventually dominate) but it is a step forward. A step forward, yes, but into what direction? The direction of nobody else can compete because nobody else com properly implement? I think OOX should be blessed as a standard, Why? Because it has unfulfillable promises according to many legislations[1] regarding patents? Because it has completely undocumented tags? Because it demands numerical and date calculus proven fallible to be present? Because it has completely undocumented magical strings (references to undocumented binary stuff)? It takes more than blanket statements to make a sound justification! [1] think EU where patent infringement is now a public crime (and Portugal is right now being sued for not having implemented that directive yet) so don't anyone dare to say this doesn't happen... 'the MS Office XML File Format' and that we should do everything we can to improve the specification of that and any other format we interact with. I've really really tried, but Microsoft defends that you could use a ruller to measure the spaces onscreen to know what autoSpaceLikeWord95 is. This is deaf-mute-blind talking to each other. If that level of disagreement is unacceptable in the community then I can leave ECMA and request that they discontinue the GNOME Foundation's membership. In my opinion that would be a step backwards. It would seem you aren't making that strong an effort to represent the possibility of Free Software developers fully implementing the standard, maybe you should in fact make it better, rather than threaten to leave. Best regards, Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Pungenday, the 11st 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
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. Even if it formally does not imply support, it could easily be misconstrued as support. In addition, unscrupulous supporters of OOXML could present it as such. So I agree with Luis: the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. I say this as a constructive proposal for action. ___ 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]
Maybe Jody's involvement can be just his personal activity and totally separated from, and have nothing to do with, GNOME. On 10/30/07, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman the GNOME Foundation should make a statement opposing the acceptance of OOXML and explaining the reason for participating in ECMA. We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please everyone. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 100% Pure Slashdot Wisdom: Source code gives a whole new meaning to free software. ___ 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 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
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: This combined conference topic was brought up at DAM-4 last week in the Desktop Organization Panel session with jrb and I in the panel from GNOME and Lars and George (don't remember the last names) from Lars Knoll. KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the Linux Foundation. So, there may well be additional organizational resources available. So, what was KDE's reaction? And any resolution? Are we going to discuss it? Where? -- 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: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On 6/18/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the Linux Foundation. So, there may well be additional organizational resources available. So, what was KDE's reaction? And any resolution? Are we going to discuss it? Where? Lars said about the same as I did before the comment from the audience--namely, that their community seemed split with some in favor of a combined conference and some against, with logistics of pulling off such an event looking pretty daunting. After the comment from the audience about the Linux Foundation existing to help with things like this, we were all kind of surprised (we just hadn't thought of that, or at least I hadn't) and we just sat there thinking about it. None of us really commented further. I think someone just asked a question on a different topic after this. We also didn't discuss it separately afterward (I'm almost certainly the wrong person to discuss it having never helped organize a conference and having no desire to do so), so we don't really have any resolutions or even official places to discuss further. *shrug* ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 19:02 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: FWIW... On 6/13/07, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Cooper wrote: * People aren't exactly falling over themselves to host and organise these things Agree - while we constantly pitch that organizing GUADEC can be an amazingly rewarding experience, the stress that we see the team going through (and people putting them through) isn't an encouragement. It's pretty much a full time job for a few months. I'd *love* to get to the stage where we could outsource the conference, but the last time we did that and outsourced an expo day, it was a bit of a disaster. Financially we're probably not in the position to do this either if people are expecting the conference to be free. This combined conference topic was brought up at DAM-4 last week in the Desktop Organization Panel session with jrb and I in the panel from GNOME and Lars and George (don't remember the last names) from KDE. When both sides mentioned that the logistics of such an event seemed quite difficult, someone pointed out that helping with this kind of collaboration is one of the reasons for the existence of the Linux Foundation. So, there may well be additional organizational resources available. So, why not giving a lift to GUADEMY and making of it an instance for KDE and GNOME hackers to get together once a year? There's this year's experience already, and it doesn't need to be huge and complicated as GUADEC and Akademy probably are right now. Just an instance and a place for the hardcore GNOME and KDE hackers to meet and share. Discuss. Get things done. From my observer position, I'd say something like the Boston summit -- it doesn't need to be a well-structured conference for everyone. If you want to achieve that, it can be as complicated as many have already pointed out. Claudio (Unfortunately, I didn't feel like there was much other feedback from the DAM conference this time, not even some listing of pain areas from others where we could improve. At least last time the LTSP folk told us about some gconf issues, which jrb handled.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Claudio Saavedra [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 17:11 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote: On 6/14/07, Bruno Boaventura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 23:24 +0300, Lucas Rocha wrote: There's a *big* difference between willing to increase collaboration between GNOME and KDE and merging their main conferences in one. I think this merge would bring really bad effects on our community. - Our conference would lose GNOMEsh identity. This is a subtle but essential aspect of GUADEC: it's where/when we meet the GNOME community. We cannot lose that. - Not everyone in GNOME community is interested in KDE. I understand that we, as a free desktop project, should be interested in KDE but we can't expect/enforce everyone in GNOME to think like this. Because we have similar goals than KDE, this does not mean we should meet at the same time and place in a generic/big free desktop conference. There are better places and times for putting both projects together and the really interested people will be there for sure. - If we're having problems on organizing our conference, let's try to solve them in the best possible way in our own boundaries. IMO, merging with KDE will bring more problems than solving from the communities point of view. Specially on defining the agenda. Yes, Lucas... I have the same point of view about this question and I guess many others have too. Me too. +1. Regards, pedro. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Hi I'm not poo-pooing the idea completely, but let me ask the question: do you think many people will be able to take 2 consecutive weeks to go to two conferences? I know I wouldn't (the boss would probably think I was nuts, and the wife would kill me). I'm wondering if there are a lot of volunteers in the same situation as me. I am very much with Dave here. Beside all the organizational problems for organizing two conferences one after another, attending two separate conferences would be much more fun and one would be more energetic and lively for each and benefit more. Cheers, Sara ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Hi all, There's a *big* difference between willing to increase collaboration between GNOME and KDE and merging their main conferences in one. I think this merge would bring really bad effects on our community. - Our conference would lose GNOMEsh identity. This is a subtle but essential aspect of GUADEC: it's where/when we meet the GNOME community. We cannot lose that. - Not everyone in GNOME community is interested in KDE. I understand that we, as a free desktop project, should be interested in KDE but we can't expect/enforce everyone in GNOME to think like this. Because we have similar goals than KDE, this does not mean we should meet at the same time and place in a generic/big free desktop conference. There are better places and times for putting both projects together and the really interested people will be there for sure. - If we're having problems on organizing our conference, let's try to solve them in the best possible way in our own boundaries. IMO, merging with KDE will bring more problems than solving from the communities point of view. Specially on defining the agenda. Just my 0,2 cents. --lucasr 2007/6/11, Lucas Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, 4) GNOME and KDE Conference There has been some discussion about a possible merge of GNOME and KDE conferences. This has been discussed at the advisory board level, along with the KDE e.v. members list. If there is considerable opposition from both sides, then it isn't worth exploring further. Jeff mentioned that it's likely to come up at DAM4. ACTION: Jeff to follow up about a possible GNOME and KDE conference merge at DAM4. Does this mean that your're proposing a new merged KDE/GNOME conference? Or is this a matter of scheduling GUADEC and aKademy at the same time and place? Or is this a GUADEC replacement with this merged conference? This is not clear in the minutes. I think it would make sense to have both conferences scheduled in way that it would be easier for us, GNOMErs, to attend both. But I don't think we should have only one merged KDE/GNOME conference. Even though we aim to increase the collaboration with KDE, we're still different projects, with different development and organization aproaches. My 2 cents, --lucasr ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 12:55 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: I'd *love* to get to the stage where we could outsource the conference, but the last time we did that and outsourced an expo day, it was a bit of a disaster. Financially we're probably not in the position to do this either if people are expecting the conference to be free. But with the greater funding opportunity that is expected to come with joining forces, we may be able to hire two contributors to work on it fulltime for a few months. Definitely possible in the less expensive European countries which are more likely to host GUADEC in the coming years, given that we've only had Western Europe countries so far. Why is it likely that we'd get more funding? With joining forces, you join sponsorship opportunities and join numbers attending. Unless there's some magical way of tapping into new sponsorship that I'm missing, you still pretty much end up with the same result - not counting those companies that used to sponsor each event, now sponsoring potentially less overall on a single event. Glynn ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
In relation to Hubert's comment I'm interested to hear your view on the Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP) that Microsoft applies to OOXML since last October. I had not heard of that before yesterday. Today I obtained a copy. I am not sure whether the license applies to partial implementations. If it does not, then anyone who wants to implement this in countries that allow software patents would have to implement the entire 6000 page spec before releasing anything patented. That is probably impossible. (Implementing the 6000 page spec may be impossible anyway.) The license seems to be incomplete: To clarify, ?Microsoft Necessary Claims? are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. ?Covered Specifications? are listed below. I do not know what the excluded parts are. Also, it has a patent retaliation clause If you file, maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification made or used by you. which could be relevant to trying to use other patents to defend GNU/Linux against Microsoft patents. Thus, those organizations which hold patents and want to use them for our defense had better not use any free implementation of OOXML. That makes the format still dangerous to the community. I will update my article sometime soon. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Hi, - Quim Gil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. And combining both events is complicated only from the organizational point of view. The KDE and GNOME community don't meet in random places, or where the software/events industry decides to organize something. The organization of each event rlies on local communities. It is not that easy for each project to find brave teams and good venues every year (how many candidates for GUADEC 2008 have we got?). Now think about the challenge of searching for a place with GNOME KDE critical mass I would tend to agree with Quim here and perhaps go a bit further - I might not be in the best place mentally atm so feel free to ignore what follows; I do think it's a good idea to pursue the possibility of a joining up GNOME, KDE, XFCE, X, Freedesktop, LSB (any others?) conference - there are so many reasons that it would make sense (as others in the thread have said). But the organisational challenge can't be ignored. IMHO GUADEC alone is already getting close to the limit of something that is entirely volunteer driven and I think just thinking of the direction of GUADEC (alone) is something that requires some discussion in the community. Here's the thing that tricked off a mind shift for me: There were 1400 registered delegates for RailsConf - it's the cool kid on the block, there are more web devs the desktop devs, blah, blah. Given the growing interest in the desktop (in the widest meaning) it's not a stretch to imaging 1400 delegates for GUADEC alone in 5 years (nevermind combining forces with everything all in one place). Given that; * The Foundation see GUADEC as an income source - I don't mean this as a criticism, just that without GUADEC income there might be other initiatives and events that couldn't happen. * We might hope / expect and 20% growth rate for GUADEC alone - much higher if it's a combined uber desktop conference * It can be difficult coping with with all the competing forces just with in GNOME (again not meant as a criticism just a fact of life) let alone multiple projects. * People aren't exactly falling over themselves to host and organise these things * Since currently both are volunteer driven they rely heavily on the passion of the people who step up to get involved in the organisation. No offense to KDE but the idea of hosting aKademy doesn't get me fired up at all, whereas the idea of hosting GUADEC fills me with joy and excitement (or more precisely the bits that bring joy and excitement far outweigh the bits that don't). It would seem to me that these things need to be considered; * Need to be at a fairly fixed time in the conference schedule (since GUADEC moves country every year we have to go with what ever organisers and venues can accommodate). * Possibly in the same place every year - this would have massive organisational overhead savings and benefits. As the numbers go up the possible venues in any region go down and the venue organisational complexities go up. O'Reilly events happen in a select few West Coast venues year on year for good reason - they get to reuse the knowledge and relationships again again. * The organisation of the conference is contracted to a company like O'Reilly - this contractually and financially easier to do just for GUADEC but a lot harder as a combined thing. Even if the uber event were to remain volunteer oraganised this would seem to me to be the biggest hurdle - how do you split the profit / risk over the various foundations * need to switch the GNOME community focus and organisation to smaller Boston summit or barcamp type events that happen around the world (supported by profits from a bigger conference). I'm not saying these are things that have to happen or are the only way forward or either/or type propositions (or even that coherent) - just stuff off the top of my head to think about. Thinking about an uber conference would be valuable if for no other reason than it will force us all to think now about issues that GUADEC may face down the line anyway. I was hoping to wait until after GUADEC to calm down and organise some these thoughts more coherently, but I thought that some of them, no matter how random, might be relevant to the debate. I wouldn't spend much time discussing about mixing/approaching GUADEC aKademy. Steps towards combined sessions and programs in the main free (and also non-free) software events is probably more fruitful. While I don't want to
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Le lundi 11 juin 2007, à 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil a écrit : As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. We already had a kind of experiment this year: the GNOME room became a KDE/GNOME/freedesktop.org room on Sunday morning. Christophe will probably remember the details about it (was it hard to find speakers, eg). The 4 speaks were about Metisse, Strigi, Xesam, and Telepathy. I don't know what people thought about it, but while it was interesting, I'm not sure it helped a lot wrt meeting KDE people and discussing interesting topics. So one thing we could do for next year is having a discussion room, and organize things a bit by letting people tell I'm from GNOME, and I'd like to discuss this, or that with people from other projects. This could make it a bit more useful. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 11:04 -0400, Claudio Saavedra wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:01 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get the collisions and 'noise' of sharing one venue at the same time. And interested GNOME hackers could that way easy attend aKademy by extending their stay a little and the same for KDE hackers the other way around. I'm not poo-pooing the idea completely, but let me ask the question: do you think many people will be able to take 2 consecutive weeks to go to two conferences? I know I wouldn't (the boss would probably think I was nuts, and the wife would kill me). I'm wondering if there are a lot of volunteers in the same situation as me. FWIW, that's what people attending GUADEC-es has been doing for the last years: attending GUADEC-es during week n, and then GUADEC during the week n+1. And that includes people traveling from South America. I'd say that people who have organized GUADEC-es in the past can give more feedback on how good results have they got with this approach of organizing the conference in a very close date to GUADEC. not from the organization, but I know it has helped, at least, in having more latin-americans in GUADEC-ES than if it were not that close to GUADEC. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. a good idea is the GUADEMY we recently had in A Coruña. It was just a start, but the idea is very good, get KDE/GNOME developers together and have talks/tutorials/etc of things that are common to both desktops. Doing separate tracks for KDE and GNOME (which is what mixing GUADEC and Akademy would mean) might not be a good idea, since you'll get 2 separated groups with almost no interaction. So, until we are all really interested in what the rival desktop is doing, I think it would be better to organise separate events, and have a 2nd edition of the GUADEMY (as part of FOSDEM if that helps), with more focus on collaboration between desktops, so that people really interested in the collaboration can attend. All others can continue going to GUADEC/Akademy. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. a good idea is the GUADEMY we recently had in A Coruña. It was just a start, but the idea is very good, get KDE/GNOME developers together and have talks/tutorials/etc of things that are common to both desktops. Doing separate tracks for KDE and GNOME (which is what mixing GUADEC and Akademy would mean) might not be a good idea, since you'll get 2 separated groups with almost no interaction. This is missing the point that GUADEC is about meeting people, not the talks. I guess aKademy is the same. So, until we are all really interested in what the rival desktop is doing, I think it would be better to organise separate events, and have a 2nd edition of the GUADEMY (as part of FOSDEM if that helps), with more focus on collaboration between desktops, so that people really interested in the collaboration can attend. All others can continue going to GUADEC/Akademy. First, I don't think of KDE as rival. Hell Qt developers and I are working together on HarfBuzz! Next, so you think most people are not interested in knowing what KDE hackers are doing? That may even be the case, doesn't mean that it's good. People don't wake up in the morning and decide that they have become interested in KDE. They do if they talk about interesting projects over beer with interesting people that happen to be KDE hackers though. -- 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: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Le mardi 12 juin 2007 à 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya a écrit : On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. a good idea is the GUADEMY we recently had in A Coruña. It was just a start, but the idea is very good, get KDE/GNOME developers together and have talks/tutorials/etc of things that are common to both desktops. Doing separate tracks for KDE and GNOME (which is what mixing GUADEC and Akademy would mean) might not be a good idea, since you'll get 2 separated groups with almost no interaction. IMHO this year we have a nice experience in GUADEMY (http://www.guademy.org), but the experience was focused in local Spain developers. We share the same hacking place and a lot of different talks where organised. My experience as member of the organisation was that the synergies from the point of view of human relations where nice, lot of people that had never met could share different experiences. But the main interest was about was is the other community doing and how the other community works. The last organisation of GUADEMY has not decided if we are interested on organising a second edition next year, i think that it would be funny again. We also have thought about doing the crazy idea for proposing a bid for organising GUADEC and Akademy at the same time in 2009, because in our LUG we have people from both communities. But at this moment it is only a crazy idea and it depends in future decisions about our next board at GPUL (http://www.gpul.org). Best Regards, Chema Casanova signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 13:02 -0700, Corey Burger wrote: On 6/11/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. Maybe for some people, not for me. Lets repeat again: many of us can only get to one European conference per year, and even that one is hard enough to get to. All of us in North America are pretty much in the same boat. A trip to Europe starts at about $500 for the East Coast and about $750 for us poor West Coast people. By combining the events (possibly also mixing This is also becoming increasingly costly as we've slid the event into the high travel season of the summer. -JP -- JP Rosevear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell, Inc. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 06:44 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:43 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. a good idea is the GUADEMY we recently had in A Coruña. It was just a start, but the idea is very good, get KDE/GNOME developers together and have talks/tutorials/etc of things that are common to both desktops. Doing separate tracks for KDE and GNOME (which is what mixing GUADEC and Akademy would mean) might not be a good idea, since you'll get 2 separated groups with almost no interaction. This is missing the point that GUADEC is about meeting people, not the talks. I guess aKademy is the same. I think so also, I like GUADEC for meeting people, but since both GUADEC and Akademy have lots of talks, and lots of people attend them, it is also about the talks, and you meet people, usually, that are interested in your same stuff, so having separate KDE/GNOME talks would mean, at the end, only a few inter-desktop relationships :-) So, until we are all really interested in what the rival desktop is doing, I think it would be better to organise separate events, and have a 2nd edition of the GUADEMY (as part of FOSDEM if that helps), with more focus on collaboration between desktops, so that people really interested in the collaboration can attend. All others can continue going to GUADEC/Akademy. First, I don't think of KDE as rival. Hell Qt developers and I are working together on HarfBuzz! I don't think of KDE as rival neither, that's why I used rival Next, so you think most people are not interested in knowing what KDE hackers are doing? they are interested, at least most people, but they would prefer to go to talks about their desktop than the other. That may even be the case, doesn't mean that it's good. People don't wake up in the morning and decide that they have become interested in KDE. They do if they talk about interesting projects over beer with interesting people that happen to be KDE hackers though. that's why a more specialised event, like GUADEMY, with talks about joint efforts, might be a better idea, IMO. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
quote who=Luis Villa 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.' About GNOME ... About the GNOME Foundation ... SHIP IT! - Jeff -- OSCON 2007: Portland OR, USAhttp://conferences.oreillynet.com/oscon/ Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box. - Italian proverb ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
quote who=Lucas Rocha I think it would make sense to have both conferences scheduled in way that it would be easier for us, GNOMErs, to attend both. But I don't think we should have only one merged KDE/GNOME conference. Even though we aim to increase the collaboration with KDE, we're still different projects, with different development and organization aproaches. Personally, that is my feeling too, for philosophical and practical reasons. For the moment though, it's just a proposal under discussion. :-) - Jeff -- OSCON 2007: Portland OR, USAhttp://conferences.oreillynet.com/oscon/ One in 10 Europeans is allegedly conceived in an Ikea bed. - BBC News, 2005 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Hi, Lucas Rocha wrote: 4) GNOME and KDE Conference There has been some discussion about a possible merge of GNOME and KDE conferences. This has been discussed at the advisory board level, along with the KDE e.v. members list. If there is considerable opposition from both sides, then it isn't worth exploring further. Jeff mentioned that it's likely to come up at DAM4. ACTION: Jeff to follow up about a possible GNOME and KDE conference merge at DAM4. Does this mean that your're proposing a new merged KDE/GNOME conference? Or is this a matter of scheduling GUADEC and aKademy at the same time and place? Or is this a GUADEC replacement with this merged conference? This is not clear in the minutes. The proposal itself is not clear, but the major points which people brought up with us are: - Getting sponsorship funds for both akademy and GUADEC is tough, since both conferences have a very similar profile to companies: Queue conversation with marketing budget guy: * Marketing: So what's this aKademy conference you want to sponsor? * Linux desktop guy: Well, the Linux desktop is important to us, and we want to show our support for it by helping the project gather people together for a conference. * Marketing: Didn't we do that last month? * Linux Desktop guy: That was the GNOME project, for GUADEC. * Marketing guy: Aren't they the Linux desktop guys? * Linux Desktop guy: Well, yes, but... * Marketing guy: Don't let the door hit you on te way out. - Increased opportunity for cross-pollination innovation if everyone is in the same place at the same time - Encourage movement away from the GNOME/KDE enclaves - Create a single place where we can gather people outside GNOME KDE (OOo, Mozilla, Eclipse) to talk about common issues - Getting hackerrs to several conferences during the Summer is hard DDC was supposed to be most of these things, but getting everyone concerned to DDC was difficult, since all the GNOME people go to GUADEC and all the KDE people go to aKademy, and getting a critical mass of volunteers to go to 2 or 3 conferences during a Summer is a tough sell. Several possibilities for co-operation exist: - Co-location: conferences take part in different parts of the same campus; we meet up for lunch at night, but have our own conferences. Have a couple of days X-desktop sessions at the end (or at the beginning). - Merge conferences - create a Super DDC which has a KDE stream a GNOME stream, but only one identity and one organising committee. There are others. There are of course problems that need to be managed - conflicting requirements around keynotes, travel sponsorship, make-up of the organising committee, and so on. But I think there are substantial benefits too, and the topic merits discussion. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get the collisions and 'noise' of sharing one venue at the same time. And interested GNOME hackers could that way easy attend aKademy by extending their stay a little and the same for KDE hackers the other way around. Christian Several possibilities for co-operation exist: - Co-location: conferences take part in different parts of the same campus; we meet up for lunch at night, but have our own conferences. Have a couple of days X-desktop sessions at the end (or at the beginning). - Merge conferences - create a Super DDC which has a KDE stream a GNOME stream, but only one identity and one organising committee. There are others. There are of course problems that need to be managed - conflicting requirements around keynotes, travel sponsorship, make-up of the organising committee, and so on. But I think there are substantial benefits too, and the topic merits discussion. Cheers, Dave. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Hi, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get the collisions and 'noise' of sharing one venue at the same time. And interested GNOME hackers could that way easy attend aKademy by extending their stay a little and the same for KDE hackers the other way around. I'm not poo-pooing the idea completely, but let me ask the question: do you think many people will be able to take 2 consecutive weeks to go to two conferences? I know I wouldn't (the boss would probably think I was nuts, and the wife would kill me). I'm wondering if there are a lot of volunteers in the same situation as me. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is 'do you think more people than today would be able/interested in attending both conferences if they are hosted in the same location back-to-back?' And the answer to that question is: Yes, I do. Christian On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:01 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: Hi, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: Another option that could be considered is back-to-back co-location. You get a lot of the same advantages in terms of cheaper financials, yet since they will be run sequentially at the same location you don't get the collisions and 'noise' of sharing one venue at the same time. And interested GNOME hackers could that way easy attend aKademy by extending their stay a little and the same for KDE hackers the other way around. I'm not poo-pooing the idea completely, but let me ask the question: do you think many people will be able to take 2 consecutive weeks to go to two conferences? I know I wouldn't (the boss would probably think I was nuts, and the wife would kill me). I'm wondering if there are a lot of volunteers in the same situation as me. Cheers, Dave. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Richard Stallman wrote: However, it may be true that we don't have much of a choice in this matter. Certain aspects of OOXML are patented by Microsoft, in the US and some other countries. Microsoft offers a gratis patent license, on conditions that do not allow free implementations. To change OOXML enough that we could distribute an implementation of it in the US would be a very big change. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html. Richard, Can you quote your sources when you say that the patent grant from Microsoft does not cover free software implementation? The link above only talks about XPS which is NOT part of the OpenXML specification. Hub ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
RE: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
Richard, In relation to Hubert's comment I'm interested to hear your view on the Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP) that Microsoft applies to OOXML since last October. See http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx Cheers, Waldo Intel Corporation - Platform Software Engineering, UMG - Hillsboro, Oregon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hubert Figuiere Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: foundation-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07 Richard Stallman wrote: However, it may be true that we don't have much of a choice in this matter. Certain aspects of OOXML are patented by Microsoft, in the US and some other countries. Microsoft offers a gratis patent license, on conditions that do not allow free implementations. To change OOXML enough that we could distribute an implementation of it in the US would be a very big change. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html. Richard, Can you quote your sources when you say that the patent grant from Microsoft does not cover free software implementation? The link above only talks about XPS which is NOT part of the OpenXML specification. Hub ___ 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: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. And combining both events is complicated only from the organizational point of view. The KDE and GNOME community don't meet in random places, or where the software/events industry decides to organize something. The organization of each event rlies on local communities. It is not that easy for each project to find brave teams and good venues every year (how many candidates for GUADEC 2008 have we got?). Now think about the challenge of searching for a place with GNOME KDE critical mass I wouldn't spend much time discussing about mixing/approaching GUADEC aKademy. Steps towards combined sessions and programs in the main free (and also non-free) software events is probably more fruitful. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. Maybe for some people, not for me. Lets repeat again: many of us can only get to one European conference per year, and even that one is hard enough to get to. Sure, there is DAM, there was DesktopConf, there is LCA, but how can they be efficient if only 50 of the 500 GUADEC attendees get the chance to experience it? And combining both events is complicated only from the organizational point of view. The KDE and GNOME community don't meet in random places, or where the software/events industry decides to organize something. The organization of each event rlies on local communities. It is not that easy for each project to find brave teams and good venues every year (how many candidates for GUADEC 2008 have we got?). Now think about the challenge of searching for a place with GNOME KDE critical mass Lets not mix organizational challenges into the discussion just yet. First step we go see if both parties (KDE and GNOME boards/communities) are interested in the topic. And I don't agree that colocating GUADEC and aKademy has a worse time finding a home. If nothing else, there are more people willing to contribute to the event, more money, etc. I wouldn't spend much time discussing about mixing/approaching GUADEC aKademy. Steps towards combined sessions and programs in the main free (and also non-free) software events is probably more fruitful. -- 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: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07
On 6/11/07, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:39 +0300, Quim Gil wrote: About the KDE GNOME event, probably the best way to progress is by doing progressive approaches. Jumping from the current situation to a joint conference sounds a bit like going from self-esteem to the 32nd position of the Kama Sutra in one go. As others have suggested, a successful combined room in FOSDEM would be already a big (and useful) step. Trying to put together GUADEC and aKademy befor trying smaller challenges in save contexts would be very risky. Maybe for some people, not for me. Lets repeat again: many of us can only get to one European conference per year, and even that one is hard enough to get to. All of us in North America are pretty much in the same boat. A trip to Europe starts at about $500 for the East Coast and about $750 for us poor West Coast people. By combining the events (possibly also mixing in an X or an XFCE track) would instantly make it much more appealing to come to, from a purely economic POV. Corey ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
