[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML]

[Alex Hudson]

Pamela Jones wrote:
> I have seen responses to letters. It has all been very, very positive.
>
> Be polite, be technical, use local wisdom, but reputational harm is a 
> very strong argument from a legal, not a political, standpoint.
>
> There is no reason to hold back, from all I am hearing.

I've seen plenty of feedback that hasn't been positive. E.g., on the 
subject of OXML being "rushed though", one response was:

    ``"Blind validation" is, regrettably, an accusation that could also
    be levelled at the way in which OASIS pushed ODF through the ISO
    process something over a year ago - and about which members of
    IST/41 protested at the time - as a result of which we have an ISO
    standard with technical and editorial flaws that we won't have the
    opportunity to correct until the five-year review.''

I think you have to be careful what arguments you make, and to whom. 
Certain committees are feeling like the issue is being politicised, and 
they switch off at that point - especially where they feel arguments 
being put forward are hypocritical. People are best making that decision 
on a local level; esp. after having talked to others who've already 
given feedback.

Alex.