[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML]

[marbux]

I think a really important is being missed in this conversation.
Negative responses to letters are really important information. If you
get a response that supports the other side's position, you have just
identified someone who needs to be either educated or failing that,
neutralized politically in the battle.

That helps you focus your efforts on applying pressure where it can
make the most  difference.

We are working on a classic postponement pending further study tactic
for stopping that train that's rolling down the track toward you. I've
worked that theme so many times I've lost count. A lot of
environmental politics takes precisely that form. Indeed, it's the
very purpose of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, which
allows courts to order preparation of environmental impact statements
before government actions proceed. Derailing a proposal from the fast
track is often the end of the battle, empowering the voices inside
government that either want to take a harder look at a proposal before
implementation or want to stop it dead in its tracks. The technique
also works well outside the courtroom. All that is usually required is
a strong showing that there are credible concerns that the proposal
might be a mistake and that the public cares about the issue. Ecma 376
is far from the first bad proposal attempted to be sneaked through a
decision process without public oversight. The tactical goal is to
open up the decision-making process, exposing the proposal's faults to
public scrutiny.

Here is how the effects of the persuasion efforts on the lobbying
targets break down in somewhat over-simplified bullet form:

* Folks who support your position. They will be pleased as punch to
have a tall stack of letters showing that the public is against the
measure under consideration. It gives them persuasive evidence ,
empowering them.

* Folks who haven't decided yet. They may be surprised that there is
public interest but will accept the letters as valuable data
indicating they need to be very careful about handling the proposal
because the public is watching.

* Folks who oppose your position. They may resent being deluged with
mail, but it convinces them that it's going to be hard to sneak the
proposal through the approval process. Unless they've got the number
of votes needed already locked in, they have to give ground to the
proponents of postponement pending further study. They cannot maintain
that no one is watching and are thrown on the defensive, having to
justify something that isn't going to wash with the public or with the
nervous Nellies in the decision-making process.

The classic industrial proponent response to the classic "postponement
pending further study" tactic is a campaign built around the theme of
"leave it to the experts." The basic appeal is that
scientific/technological issues are involved that should not be
decided on a political basis, but should instead be decided on
technical/scientific merit. An example: in the Herbicide Wars, the
ag-chem industry had a front group called the Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology ("CAST"), with credentialed experts (none with
strong public health credentials, however). Those guys were available
on a day's notice notice basis to be flown in to make the "leave it to
the experts" argument in whatever forum was involved. We used to call
them "Dow's Firemen," because their job was to quell spot fires of
citizen resistance to abusive use of herbicides that endangered public
health. They had stacks of preprinted propaganda, with the foundation
a white paper called "The CAST Report on Public Health Implications of
Phenoxy Herbicides." I butted heads with those guys so often at public
meetings around the U.S. that I was on a first-name basis with them.
Their report was pure hokum and included no references. Eventually we
persuaded BioScience to investigate them, resulting in an expose in a
reputable scientific journal that exposed their funding sources and
took them to task for unsupportable statements. At the next encounter
with them, the annual convention of the National Cattlemen's
Association, we distributed reprints of the BioScience expose. The
CAST lead "scientist," Boysie Day, announced when it was his turn to
speak that CAST was no longer involved in the herbicide debate and cut
short all other remarks. We had successfully neutralized them.

Virtually every major polluting corporation and industry has similar
front groups that specialize in delivering the "leave it to the
experts" message. They specialize in propaganda designed to disempower
the public by ridicule, resting on their credentials to argue that the
public is being foolish. They work those with influence over the
proposal's decision incessantly, pushing the "leave it to the experts"
theme. They disseminate the same propaganda to targeted segments of
the public, trying to convince people they lack the expertise to
criticize and that letters to those with influence over the decision
will offend the decision-makers and therefore be counter-productive.

This is a developed art, often used in conjunction with scientifically
valid public opinion sampling in the target populations to monitor
progress in the persuasion process using a melding of opinion surveys
with a modified version of Kurt Lewin's original force-field analysis
techniques. See e.g.,
<http://www.accel-team.com/techniques/force_field_analysis.html>
(illustrating use of force field analysis in improving worker
productivity). It is the same technique my Special Forces unit used in
Viet Nam, the 4th Psychological Operation Group, although we used the
term "values" in place of "forces" and those values also had numerical
values derived from the opinion surveys. In this situation, one of the
values in Microsoft's force field analysis undoubtedly is "leave it to
the experts." Values relate directly to their corresponding "themes"
or "messages." It is the same technique used in advertising and
marketing of products. It is the same technique used by those who can
afford it in major election and political lobbying battles. There is
another short explanation of force field analysis here,
<http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm>, as applied to
a decision whether to install new manufacturing equipment. That page
includes a link for a downloadable PDF form helpful if you want to
play with the concepts yourself.

I know whereof I speak. This stuff is all second nature to me. There
are many software industry "market analysis" firms that ply the
propaganda trade using force-field analysis and opinion sampling
techniques. I have long and deep experience with such techniques on
both the sending and opposing ends. It is both encouraging and
troubling that the "leave it to the experts" theme is making its way
onto this list. It is encouraging because it suggests that we as a
group are deemed important enough to the JTC-1 decision-making process
that we are among the other side's propaganda targets, which should
encourage people on the list to flex their muscles.

But it is troubling in that the Microsoft "leave it to the experts"
theme has acquired advocates among us. I ask those who are raising the
theme to carefully examine how you arrived at that position. Is it
conceivable to you that you have been misled by someone? Is it
conceivable to you that you have yourself been effectively
propagandized by someone from the Microsoft camp who is working the
"leave it to the experts" theme? It would be very difficult for me to
accept  that you arrived at that position independently. It is simply
too closely aligned with the theme that is invariably played by the
protagonist side in identical situations. Who planted that idea in
your head? Is it conceivable to you that the person or persons who
made that argument to you got their information from Microsoft, either
directly or indirectly?

We have to be wary. We should not fall easy victim to Microsoft's
propaganda messages. We've written our "white paper." The name of the
game now is pressure and persuasion. Both require raising as many
cumulatively effective voices as we can. The Microsoft side has
nothing but subterfuge to work with. The Truth is on our side. Our
theme is "postponement pending further study." The more voices we can
raise voicing that theme the better. People need not be an expert to
raise that concern. Asking the experts to slow down and take a real
hard look at the situation requires no expertise.

Folks need do more than make that request, link to the JTC-1
objections document, and request that Ecma 376 be removed from fast
track processing for more intensive study in light of the criticisms
raised in the EOOXML Objections document.
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671>.

The more such requests we can instigate, the more likely we are to
carry the day at JTC-1. It is as simple as that.

To be clear, I am not suggesting for a moment that people who have
posted to this list are Microsoft agents. I am suggesting that I have
many times seen industry propaganda themes trickle down into
discussions among those in the public interest camp. When it happens,
the problem has to be recognized and dealt with. It is not an unusual
event. Propaganda is designed to affect people's thinking and its
sources often are less than transparent. We should take this as yet
another sign that Microsoft's propagandists are having an effect. We
need to counter it by disseminating the "postponement pending further
study" theme.

Best regards,

Marbux