[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML]

[Pamela Jones]

You failed to quote the entire letter, which I have in full.  It ended 
by saying that the individual hoped to prevent the rushing mistake 
regarding ODF from slipping past them with EOXML.  So the bottom line 
was still very positive, since part of the problem is the rushing on the 
fast track.

I'd dispute the facts regarding ODF, but even if you accepted it, the 
bottom line of the letter was positive.


Alex Hudson wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>