[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[marbux]

On 6/1/07, Daniel <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>
> marbux wrote:
> > the Foundation-sponsored TC members are being given heave-ho,
>
> I have to speak here. I am one of the Foundation-sponsored members in
> that sentence. This has nothing to do with the vote on the list
> implementation in ODF 1.2 and it is complete red herring to bring it up
> here.


We differ. I have been examining the evidence in depth and I could easily
win a jury trial on that issue. I think you pay far too much heed to what an
OASIS staffer has said, a staffer who I might add has good reason to lie to
cover his backside. I proceed from deep experience in proving that things
are not as someone says, even when sworn to tell the truth.


What happened was that the Foundation vastly exceeded the number
> of members that the OASIS rules say it should have. OASIS was gracious
> enough to discuss the issue for a year before actually applying their
> rules.


For a year? I am told that the Foundation received the first email on the
subject from OASIS on March 9, 2007. I have it and what I believe to be all
relevant correspondence between OASIS and Gary Edwards. If you have evidence
that Gary lied to me, I would like to know what it is and who you got it
from.

As far as I can tell, the Foundation knew at the times that it
> gave out memberships that it was breaking OASIS rules,


You omit that at all relevant times OASIS knew that the Foundation was doing
so and in fact encouraged the Foundation to continue doing so. Indeed, when
Gary renewed the Foundation membership the last time he specifically asked
if switching to the small corporation membership as OASIS requested would
cause any change in the number of members the Foundation could sponsor. He
was told no, that OASIS truly appreciated all the fine work that all of the
Foundation members were doing. Gary renewed on that understanding.

That set of facts raises legal issues of breach of contract, breach of
warranty, waiver of rights, estoppel, and laches. I so informed OASIS and
was contacted in that regard by their outside counsel. I am now in
discussions with OASIS on where we go from here.

and with the

> exception of Marbux I don't think any of the Foundation-sponsored
> members were informed. I wasn't informed, and everyone I've heard from
> says they weren't informed (with the exception of Marbux).


That is largely correct. On the other hand, OASIS was not pushing the issue
and setting deadlines until only a few days before OASIS sent Foundation
members their eviction notices.

I also feel I should say that OASIS has moved to offer free membership
> to the Foundation-sponsored members who contributed to ODF through their
> fee-waiver program.


Yes, under the OASIS sponsored membership plan for those with financial
"hardships." Can I in good faith claim that I can not afford to pay for an
OASIS membership? No. I cannot. Am I willing to tell that lie, especially
when my *contributed* work helps the big vendors that control the TC? No, I
do not believe I should have to pay to contribute my work. I have no hopes
of receiving any financial gain for my contributions.  Am I willing to
contribute my work to a bunch of ingrates like OASIS's membership thug and
the Sun Star Division managers? Not nearly as much as I was before recent
events.

> 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.
>
> Well, if you can't reach a concensus you have to have a vote. What else
> would you do? You can't keep up a discussion forever.


You can do as the law requires. I briefed it fairly extensively on the TC
list. Consensus is not an issue of manners in that situation. It is required
by the antitrust laws. Industry standard-setting consortia can not lawfully
be used to break competitors' apps. That applies in spades because Sun has a
monopoly position in the market for ODF applications.

The situation is also more than somewhat problematic under the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade because the changes Sun insisted on have the
effect of tilting the competitive playing field in its favor by maintaining
Microsoft formats and ODF as incompatible. Under the Agreement, improper
motives are forbidden, but there is no need to reach that issue because the
treaty is also concerned with effects on competition regardless of motive.

And the situation was ludicrous from the beginning because Sun never had an
explanation for what these supposed groovy new features are that were
supposed to justify breaking compatibility with ODF 1.0 and with the
Foundation's MS Office plug-in. As it stands, the only revealed groovy new
feature thus enabled is the break in compatibility.

The situation was not helped a week or so later when Sun announced in a
conference call that they would only partly implement RDF in SO/OOo and then
promptly proposed changes to the Metadata SC draft that allow. I countered
with some language requiring that the relevant XML-ID attribute metadata be
preserved, which is in the latest SC draft. It will be interesting to see
how Sun responds to that. Sun has been pretty much sitting on the sidelines
since I raised enough legal fuss to get the Sun lawyers in California
involved.

IBM capitalized on Sun's disarray and proposed an Interoperability
Subcommittee several weeks ago, a topic on which Sun has yet to voice an
opinion. I oppose it because what is needed is to get the interoperability
work done in ODF 1.2, not an SC with no purpose other than to prepare a
report by an undefined date.

In my opinion you err if you view this situation as being just about a minor
list numbering feature. It is about the question of whether ODF is to be an
interopreable standard for the world or Sun's de facto file format standard
for its own products dressed in the clothing of an international standard.
OASIS came down on the wrong side.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070601/a5fa3125/attachment-0001.html