[odf-discuss] [Fwd: OOXML]

[marbux]

[more]

On 1/26/07, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
> marbux wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think you're missing the point. This isn't about "leave it to the
> experts" versus "lobby like crazy".
>
> This is about writing to people in a way which will actually have an
> effect. The whole thinking you outline is adversarial in nature, and
> that simply won't do over here: the people we are writing to are neither
> our friends nor our enemies, and they _do not take sides_. There is no
> "us" and "them", until we push them too hard.
>

You are demonstrably and unquestionably in error. Those people  must
take sides. They will either vote to divert Ecma 376 from the fast
track or they will vote to keep it on the fast track. That is very
much "taking sides." And applying pressure to influence which side
they take is precisely why we are going through this exercise.

[more]

> If you write to committee members of the BSI, simply regurigitating
> arguments without looking at previous communications is just going to
> annoy them, frankly. And the more annoyed they get, the *less* they will
> listen to us. It's that simple a formula: we have a chance to convince
> them, and "pressure" does not create an environment in which people will
> be receptive.
>

Why don't you try bouncing that thought off the folks in the FFII
leadership who got people marching in the streets to successfully stop
the E.C.'s Directive on Computer-Assisted Inventions and bombarding
MPs with letters and emails? Or try it on the leadership of Greenpeace
International, for whom I used to be  primary consultant on worldwide
strategies and tactics for implementing their still-ongoing pollution
"Zero Discharge" campaign. They could probably use a good belly laugh.
We are not aliens on this side of the pond. Bureaucracies and
bureaucrats share common traits everywhere. Forget all that pablum you
were fed about different forms of government. There is only one form
of government in the world and that is the bureaucratic form of
government; all the rest is shades of gray.

I will say it again. The words you are using came from Microsoft,
either directly or indirectly. You are attempting to pull the fangs
from a public interest lobbying campaign. Please stop it or go sign up
with Microsoft's lobby. Your position has no valid role in this
discussion other than reversing whatever damage you have caused to the
effort.

You are not alone in your position. I've just heard it from someone
else I've worked this issue with very closely. I am telling that
person exactly what I am telling you. I am telling both of you what I
have told everyone who temporarily succumbed to such tactics in other
campaigns I have worked.

Please get on the bandwagon or get out of the way.

Best regards,

Marbux

> I'm not saying people shouldn't write letters. I am saying that they
> should be very, very smart about how they write them, and do some research.
>
You are wrong. While I believe thoughtful polite letters are better,
it's all about pressure. Just as in elections, it doesn't matter if a
voter cusses a candidate; it does matter who the voter votes for. The
folks on the receiving end are tallying the numbers pro and con. They
have a separate tally for news media. They have another tally for
folks who control their paychecks. The have a separate tally for ...

It is all about pressure now. Pressure is what puts what they do under
the microscope. Pressure is what empowers the folks who support our
position, disables the folks who want to vote the other way, and
influences the people in the middle.

To argue that it is not about applying pressure is just naive. Do some
research on decisions made at ISO. You'll find poor standards and good
standards. What got the poor standards through? Do you believe it was
technical merit? If not, what do you think it was? I'll leave you to
ponder that.

Best regards,

Marbux