Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?

["Luis Villa" <luis tieguy org>]

On Nov 28, 2007 7:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms 1407 org> wrote:
> > I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this
> > instance.  It can not force developers towards or away from either
> > spec.  That is simply not in it's mandate.
>
> I may be being obtuse, but what's not in it's mandate for ODF but is for
> OOXML? Or am I reading your words wrong?

Yes, you are. :) He means that we can't force anyone to do anything.
In the OOXML case, someone came to the board and volunteered, and the
board helped out. There was no mandate there. Similarly, if someone
came and volunteered to work on ODF, the board would (presumably) seek
to join the relevant standards bodies so that that volunteer could
participate. But we can't force anyone to go do that work for us.

> > We all appear to agree
> > that implementing ODF is good for FLOSS.  However, beyond that
> > there's no stick, and a carrot (eg funding) seems inappropriate (why
> > this project vs the dozens of others).
>
> Or one another in particular? For a fake standard, there is funding?

What funding? No one is paying Jody to do what he does on OOXML;
again, he is a volunteer, doing things voluntarily. If someone were to
volunteer for ODF, the board would facilitate it. But the board isn't
going to pay anyone to work on either standard.

Luis