Re: two questions for candidates

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Rui Miguel Silva Seabra">
> > Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO.
> So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them?

No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who
has not changed its methods, as if it was a normal human being.

> What I am saying here is not
> that we should put up a weak fight. I am saying we should *defeat* OOXML
> under the terms defined by ISO.

As far as ISO is concerned, GNOME Foundation participated in the
Disposition of Comments. We know that isn't true, but ECMA's PR is
clearly written in a way to suggest all those entities did it without
saying it outright.

BTW, Jeff, Jody: did the GNOME Foundation ever receive a notice from
ECMA to participate in the Disposition of Comments?

I'd really like to know that in order to call ECMA out in the open...

> I'm helping to do that in Australia. It is
> in the local standards bodies that the fight exists now. Not on the GNOME
> Foundation mailing list.

Yes, but the matter is of...

> > Right on, but you could make sure not only geeks noticed the many poison
> > pills of OOXML. This discussion is an evident proof one of the poison
> > pills is getting at people.
> This discussion is not about supporting OOXML.

... profiling candidates :)


Today is Boomtime, the 40th 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...?

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