[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[Daniel]

marbux wrote:
> Let's see. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under
> discussion.

You brought up an issue that had nothing to do with the topic under 
discussion. The question that started this thread was "does the 
applications page list ODF 1.1 support?". You took the thread way off 
topic. In addition, what I said has value. I'm pointing out that this 
isn't the first time we disagree on the reading of something. You don't 
have to take everything as an attack you know?

>> So... the Foundation vastly exceeded the number of members allowed by
>> OASIS rules... OASIS spent two years talking to the Foundation asking it
>> to follow the rules... the Foundation never tells its sponsored members
>> that it is breaking OASIS rules or that OASIS is asking for a change...
>> and you think that this means that now OASIS should tolerate the same
>> rule breaking in perpetuity?
> 
> There you go again. A 2-point straw man argument, putting words in my mouth

No I'm not. I never claimed to be quoting you. I presented the situation 
as I see it.

> I said that the fact that OASIS had
> assured Gary when they asked him to switch to the small corp. membership
> that it would not result in any change in the number of members the
> Foundation was sponsoring

Where those their words? Or did they say "no change in the number of 
members *allowed*"? AFAICT the number of non-employee members the 
Foundation was sponsorhing break OASIS rules no matter what the status 
of the Foundation is. No entity is allowed to have 29 non-employee 
members at OASIS.

> I have proposed a settlement with OASIS in which the Foundation would 
> agree to
> limit itself to 15 sponsored members for the remainder of the year to allow
> time to either work this out or for the members to make other arrangements.

No objections.

> As it is, I have difficulty believing that your mischaracterizations of 
> what I said were not intentional.

The problem is that you take everything I say as an attack. For example, 
when I describe a situation that doesn't always mean that I claim to be 
quoting you. More often than not I'm describing how I see it. If I claim 
to quote you I will say so, and usually use quotation marks.

>>> Any theory on why at this precise juncture did OASIS suddenly
>>
>> Suddenly? Haven't discussions been going on for many months? How long
>> have you known about this problem?
> 
> Again, another straw man argument.

How is it a strawman? Is the decision sudden or not? If they've been 
talking about it for months and months I don't see how it is sudden.

> OASIS had been discussing it with the Foundation for a year. I will presume
> from the fact that you had no answer to that fact that you have now 
> conceded it.

Rather than conceeded it, you and OASIS are giving me different stories. 
You say March 2007 and OASIS says "from the beginning". It's 
unreasonable to assume that if I don't respond to every line in your 
email I must agree with it.

> And I fail to see the relevance of how long I have known about the
> issue other than another attack on the messenger

If you have known about it for months it shows that it is not "sudden". 
And please stop seeing everything as an attack on you, it's bewildering 
how often you do that.

> And you still offer no reason for the coincidence of the OASIS sudden
> decision

I have been disputing the "sudden" part. It looks like it's been under 
discussion for a very long time.

> Hey, if you can't win the
> election, get rid of the voters who might vote the wrong way, eh?

Let's see... Thomas Zander was sponsored by the Foundation, and he voted 
against your proposal. In fact, the wrote the alternative proposal. I 
was sponsored by the Foundation and I would not vote for your proposal. 
Of the Foundation sponsored people, exactly two voted for your proposal, 
and that's the same number of people you are allowed to have. The vote 
took place before any members were removed. If the vote had taken place 
after the members were removed that would have worked in *your* favour 
because Thomas' vote would not be there.

>>> 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?
>>
>> Uhmm... you are planning to fork ODF because KDE, Sun and IBM agreed on
>> one thing but the Foundation wanted something else?
> 
> No. That is another straw man argument putting words in my mouth that I
> never uttered.

First, it is a question. Second, that's the message I get from what you 
wrote.

> OASIS ODF?" The issue is not "wanted." The issue was whether the
> Foundation *can* support the OASIS flavor of ODF in its plug-in.

"The OASIS flavour of ODF"? Gosh... "the OASIS flavour of ODF" *is* ODF.

>> Think, man, and throw some market share figures into the equation.
>>
>> What's the market share of the Foundation plugin?
> 
> It's not what it is today, it is what it will be after a few government
> procurement contracts.

I take it that you are convinced that there will be many. When/if the 
Foundation plugin reaches a significant market share your proposal 
will/would likely gain weight.

> There is definitely a market out there for a
> Microsoft Office plug-in that natively reads and writes to a format
> Microsoft does not control.

Absolutely. I don't know if the Foundation plugin is the best fit for 
that market but that's a whole other discussion, way off topic.

> I  find it very interesting that you choose to blame the Foundation and me
> for what was done by Sun and the others who voted for breaking 
> compatibility with MS Office.

What am I blaming you for? I disagree with your view of the vote or how 
OASIS is applying its rules. I didn't say that you caused the vote to go 
that way if that's what you mean.

>> 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.
>>
>> I have never thought of you as a reconciliatory figure. On the contrary,
>> you always seem divisive to me.
> 
> There you go with another ad hominem argument.

I think you are being a bit sensitive today. I don't think you are a 
reconciliatory figure. You say only you and Patrick tried to reconcile. 
I responded to that statement.

 > So you say I lie
> about trying to get folks to reconcile their differences, eh?

Now who is mis-quoting whom? I didn't say you lied, and I made no 
statement about your intentions. I said that I've never thought of you 
as a reconciliatory figure and I stand by those words. I don't think you 
are, whatever your intentions might be.

> You are a troll, Daniel.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. It will be difficult to agree on 
anything if you preceive everything I say as troll.

Daniel.