[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML]

[marbux]

On 1/25/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:43 -0800, marbux wrote:
> > There are two schools of thought here. I.e., we *want* them to know
> > they're in the spotlight. That doesn't mean that offensive
> > communications should be encouraged.
>
> It's not just about being offensive. You shouldn't be offensive to
> people as a matter of course, even if you don't like what they say.
>
> Don't try to bully ISO. It can fire-back very badly. It is one thing to
> point out relevant issues, and another to try to force political
> pressure on ISO.
>

Where did I suggest that people try to bully ISO or anyone else?
You're putting words and concepts in my mouth that I never used. That
is an unwarranted mischaracterization of what I said.

I do have a huge amount of experience in lobbying, some 15 years in
the international leadership of the anti-toxic substances movement. I
came into that issue when there were only three of us nationally
working the the public interest side full-time. I have repeatedly
coordinated successful lobbying efforts both in and outside
government.

To suggest that we should try to limit the numbers of people who
contact those with influence on the February 5 decision is
preposterous. Please point me to a specific example where confining
the number of contacts was successful where large numbers of contacts
would not have. I would really like to study it.

I will give you a concrete and highly relevant example, however, where
people tried to proceed using back-channel dealings and it failed.
That is Massachusetts ITD and its handling of the OpenDocument issue.
A few people tried to work through personal contacts with ITD
leadership. The OpenDocument Foundation folks are among them, as were
IBM, Sun, and a few others. They went along with private
communications and backroom dealings between them and ITD and between
ITD and Microsoft.

Microsoft did not make that mistake. They organized resistance from
the disabled workers' community, publicized their issue, went to the
legislature, and got ITD's funding pulled. The OpenDocument proponents
were left flat-footed without a grassroots lobbying base to counter
the Microsoft legislative influence. Now someone is going to have to
go in and do the grassroots organizational work to get ITD's funding
restored.

You can also bet that Microsoft's lobbyists are not confining
themselves to a single contact with the people influencing JTC-1's
decision. People have described on this list how Microsoft lobbied
against adoption of OpenDocument by ISO. They lost that battle; do you
have some reason for believing they will apply less pressure this time
around?

Daniel, you have been doing some great work, both on developing the
contradictions and in working the issue through your contacts. But
please, do not discourage people from sending emails to the relevant
JTC-1 contacts. If this decisional process was only about the
technical merits of Microsoft's specification, Microsoft would not
have bothered even submitting it to ISO. You and I both know that
intimately after all of our work on the EOOXML Issues document.

If you accept that, then you have to ask yourself why Microsoft thinks
they even have a shot at getting Ecma 376 through ISO. If you have any
ideas on how that might be anything other than their plans to apply
lobbying pressure, I'd like to hear them.

This battle isn't about the technical merits of Ecma 376. We have our
brief written addressing the technical merits. Now we have to deal
with the political issues. Our goal should be to counter Microsoft's
lobbying pressure and to apply more pressure than they do. Microsoft
is the one taking the back channel approach this time.  It would be an
enormous mistake not to take the public channel ourselves. Learn from
Massachusetts.

Best regards,

Marbux