[odf-discuss] Response from a GNOME Foundation board director

[Pamela Jones]

marbux wrote:
> 
> 
> Novell is supposed to be a community member too, with 15 developers 
> working on OOo. Pam beats up on Novell about the patent part of the 
> Novell Linux deal, but if she's ever said a word about the OOXML part of 
> the deal, I missed it.  

You did miss it, and more than once. That's if you are being honest and 
not just wanting to attack anyone that supports ODF, without bothering 
to check the facts.

I wrote an entire article all about it:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061204130954610

Groklaw also published FSFE Georg Greve's article about it he wrote for 
Groklaw, "Novell's Danaergeschenk"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061208135621706

I wrote about Novell and OOXML again here, "Searching for Openness in 
Microsoft's OOXML and Finding Contradictions":
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007011720521698

Groklaw has repeatedly covered this issue.





But the fact that Pam is willing to beat up on
> Novell in regard to the patents part of the deal suggests that Novell is 
> not above her reproach. So why isn't she picking on Novell too when it 
> comes to OOXML support? I don't see any reason to believe that the fact 
> that Novell is a proprietary company is why Pamela claims not to care 
> what proprietary software companies do. She clearly does. Just not when 
> it comes to OOXML, apparently. Better to pick on the Gnome Foundation 
> and a FOSS developer who's following his own lights

And you go on and on with your verifiably incorrect facts.


> I realize I'm switching subjects somewhat, but IBM is the only company 
> that ever audited our source code and Rob Weir not only hosted one of 
> the demos but also tried very hard to be designated as the lead auditor 
> for IBM. But now he accuses of of having only vaporware and chides us 
> for not open sourcing our code yet? 
Exactly when do we mere mortals get to see your code?  You make strong 
assertions about it, but where is it?


> 
> And where were all of you when we were trying to fix the interop warts 
> in ODF so enterprises could implement ODF painlessly? Far too many of 
> you were too busy posting on this list that what we had already done was 
> impossible to get your own hands dirty doing scutwork on the ODF TC.

More insults. Has it not occurred to you three drama queens that you 
were wrong? That people seriously considered your proposals and decided 
they didn't agree with your approach?


> 
> Well, surprise, surprise, you've heard today from two of the people most 
> responsible for ODF failing in Massachusetts, Rob Weir and Pam Jones, 

This is so over the top, it is hard to even respond.

> both of whom are dedicated to the idea that high fidelity interop with 
> Microsoft Office would prolong the life of Office. To wit, their support 
> for mandatory rip out and replace legislation in four states that went 

Groklaw never supports any legislation. You know perfectly well that we 
avoid politics. We report what is happening, but Groklaw in its history 
has never taken any position on any legislation. The worst thing about 
this particular smear is that you know better. You and I couldn't see 
eye to eye about it, but because of our discussions, you know that my 
view was and is that  Groklaw doesn't take any political stand.  This is 
beneath you, marbux.
> 
> Louis Guteriez told IBM that if ODF failed in Massachusetts it would 
> fail everywhere, and that he had the emails to prove it. IBM and Sun are 
> responsible for that failure, as is Pamela Jones for not covering what 
> Sun was doing on the TC. I know she knew about it because I sent her the 
> emails myself.  But just like back when I was still working with her, 
> Sun gets a pass. And both Sun and Novell get a pass on OOXML support.
  "Waah! Sun's translator gets chosen by MA instead of ours!  Waah! 
OASIS doesn't choose our approach! Waah! PJ won't print my fantasies!"

Grow up, you guys.  Or at least get your facts right.

And as for not publishing what you were sending me, I certainly am glad 
I didn't, now that you have shown who you really are and what you are 
really all about.  I'd say I showed excellent editorial judgment.  But 
the bottom line is, I have no obligation to publish anything. Publish it 
yourself. I don't believe you get yours facts straight, so I don't trust 
a word you say or write any more. So obviously, I won't publish it.



> 
> Sure, beat up on them. But don't worry about the foxes already in the 
> ODF henhouse. Kill all messengers who bring bad news and then no one 
> will dare bring you bad news. Just read Groklaw and Slashdot, at the 
> latter of which you can read about our supposed coding work to support 
> OOXML. Hey, maybe Pam can put that one in News Picks too, like she did 
> with that article from El Reg saying that we had stopped all work on da 
> Vinci. False and misleading information is so much more fun to read than 
> bad news. Gee, back when I was editing News Picks, I had firm orders 
> never to run an article that even smelled like it had erroneous 
> information in it. Pam always checks her facts before she publishes. 
> Right. Unless it says something bad about someone she has deemed guilty 
> of disloyalty to ODF, I guess.

I've shown what I view as commendable restraint so far in *not* telling 
the world all about you guys.  But I would suggest that you and Gary 
review what constitutes libel and slander.