Perhaps letters to standards institutes in various countries from interested citizens/subjects would, in fact, have more impact than signing petitions, if only by letting bureaucrats know that at the very least, their decisions were being watched by others than lobbyists. But to my mind, this is less a motivation for not signing the petition in question here than for sending a letter in addition to signing the petition....
Henri 2007/6/25, Harold Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 25/06/07, Pueblo Native <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Harold Fuchs wrote: > > Signing *might* make a difference. Not signing will *definitely not* > > make a > > difference. Sounds like a no brainer to me. > > > > > And that's the same justification that I've heard for tens of thousands > of internet petitions on almost anything and everything in the world, > from famine in Africa to the price of gas in town and all things in > between. I guess you could say that signing a petition about the amount > of third world debt would make more difference than not signing it, but > I would prefer to do other things that would make more of a difference. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I fully agree; doing something that makes more difference than signing the petition makes a lot of sense. In the case of third world debt there are any number of things an individual can do that are better than signing a petition. But in the case of getting a technical standard rejected by a bunch of bureaucrats, I'm not so sure. I look forward to your suggestions; I'm in the UK if that helps. The British Standards Institute, which is documented as handling the UK's response to Microsoft's efforts to make OOXML a standard does not seem to have any references to its response on its web site; or maybe I just need new spectacles ??? -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
