[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[marbux]

On 6/1/07, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > Read Patrick Durusau's post in that thread. He pretty clearly stated
> > his belief that the incompatibility with ODF 1.0 has to be removed.
>
> I don't read his post that way. Given that no-one basically implemented
> lists from ODF 1.0 correctly, his points about invaliding
> implementations are commentary on the ODF 1.0 compatibility situation.


His post speaks for itself. You are free to interpret it as you wish.
Knowing Patrick and having read his post myself, I am comfortable with my
reading of it.

> And the TC is most decidedly not back to business as usual. Novell is
> > no longer participating
>
> Florian seems to still be posting....
>
>     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200706/msg00003.html


A one-line post does not a participant make and you forget that Florian has
a dual-status as a Foundation member. Novell is not participating on the TC
anymore. I know whereof I speak.

> the Foundation-sponsored TC members are being given heave-ho
>
> You mean, "The Foundation is being limited to the number of TC members
> set out in the rules". The Foundation will still have members after that.


2 members, if OASIS doesn't blink first. Down from 29. A situation OASIS has
not only tolerated but also affirmatively encouraged for over 2 years. Any
theory on why at this precise juncture did OASIS suddenly become so
concerned about the Foundation having too many TC members and acquire its
related sudden concern about IPR conditions the Foundation's members are
claimed not to be subject to?

> the Foundation itself is moving on
>
> That's their call if they want to take their ball home. They don't have
> a public implementation anyway.


That's right. But when it goes public, do you think it can still support
OASIS ODF? Can you spell F-O-R-K and comprehend who caused it? Do you want
Microsoft Office writing a different flavor of ODF than the rest of the ODF
world? When that happens, will you blame the Foundation? Think, man, and
throw some market share figures into the equation.

And perhaps think a bit about the TC proving what Microsoft has been saying,
that Microsoft can't do what they need to do using ODF, that ODF is the OOo
specification and it won't work for them, etc. Do you see no problem
whatsoever with that vote?

> and the TC has done next to no work on the spec since the ballot.

>
> That's not my experience.


What experience? You didn't even know which thread had the relevant
discussion. When you joined this conversation you linked a single post and
said, "That was the only mail on the TC I could find which discussed the
result of the ballot which wasn't from you." That certainly does not sound
like someone who has been reading every post to the TC list, i.e., someone
with relevant "experience."

By no stretch of the imagination is the TC producing work on the spec at the
pace it did before.  I doubt that any TC member would claim otherwise.

> And it is inaccurate to say "that's how the TC works." This is the
> > first time in the TC's history when the consensus process was
> > abandoned. The fact that the OASIS rules allows it does not alter how
> > the TC worked in the past.
>
> If you can't come to consensus agreement, you have to vote and solve the
> problem. Otherwise, you're in stalemate. That is how the process works.


Well, let's put it this way, then. The TC managed to reconcile every
previous ballot where a no vote occurred. No one even tried this time except
Patrick and me. The process you discuss is the official OASIS process, not
the way the TC has worked in the past.

Your point to which I responded was "There was division, it was debated, and
the proposal from the Sun/KDE people got the most votes. That's how the TC
works."

I responded that it is not the way the TC has worked in the past. I will
assume that you have conceded that point because you do not deny it and
instead switch to what the OASIS process allows.

I'm going to stop responding, Alex. You're more concerned with finding fault
with me than you are with searching for the truth. I don't have time for
those kinds of games.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070601/09c06563/attachment-0001.htm