Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]

On 11/1/07, Andy Tai <atai gnu org> 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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]