Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:37:27PM -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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.


Or is it?
Today is Pungenday, the 41st 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]