[odf-discuss] Gnome Foundation and ECMA

[Jody Goldberg]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:55:22AM -0400, Pamela Jones wrote:
>
> All Jody and Gnome have to do to turn this around is to make a statement 
> clarifying, so the false impression, as you view it, doesn't get carved in 
> stone and Microsoft is not able to misuse the participation for its own 
> ends.

Clarifying what?  Each time we make a declaration the target is
moved.

- Am I contributing to the resolution of issues ?
    No

- Do I plan to contribute to the resolution of issues ?
    No

- Am I funded/controled/manipulated/tied [fill in appropriate legal
  term] by MS or its partners/subsidiaries ...
    No

- Is GNOME funded/controlled/manipulated/tied [fill in appropriate legal
  term] by MS or ....
    No

- Does GNOME encourage people to use MOOX ?
    No

- Does GNOME advocate that ISO approve MOOX ?
    If we had a vote (which we do not) I would abstain.

- Do Gnumeric developers support free software ?
    Yes.  Gnumeric is GPL, our libraries are GPL or LGPL, we've
    contributed code to a large swath of projects.

- Do we implement ODF ?
    Yes

- Have we worked on ODF ?
    Yes

- Are we anti-ODF ?
    No.  We've performed exactly the same function as an external
    evaluator for ODF as for MOOX, and listed problems as they
    arise.  If anything we've self censored to a massive degree to
    avoid publicising the problems we've encountered in ODF.

- Are we MOOX fanboys, drooling after it's shiny technology ?
    No.  It's pissed us off quite a bit too.  Look for instances in
    the code of '!@$!@!@# idiots did what ???', but despite that
    we'll implement it because there are users this will help.

- Have we worked more on ODF than MOOX ?
    Yes.  My MOOX contributions are limited to finding faults.  For
    ODF I've contributed text and code to OO.o.

Nor do I beat my wife.

What else do we need to state or clarify ?