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.

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