[odf-discuss] Fwd: W3C Lead on CDF says OpenDocument Fellowship
Position on CDF Makes No Sense
Daniel
daniel.carrera at zmsl.com
Sat Nov 10 15:58:09 EST 2007
I understand that what was intended as a private email cannot be
considered a flame. It's an easy mistake. That said, and regarding the
contents of the post, I find it difficult to give the benefit of doubt
to an organization that has used the name "OpenDocument Foundation" to
spread so much anti-ODF propaganda and provided Microsoft with anti-ODF
arguments:
* http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/GOSCON_Chart.pdf
* http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dghfk5w9_66ds7m5z
* Numerous blogs.
Daniel.
Ryan Singer wrote:
> I've just found out that gary meant to send this as a person reply to
> me, and forgot to check the headers to see I had CC'd the fellowship.
>
> Obviously, what Gary intended to write as a private communication to
> an old friend, in this time when he is getting all of this stressful
> negative press, is not fit for public or list consumption.
>
> Gary asked me to apologize about this and to say that it was not his
> intention to flame this list. Gary and his team are currently
> undergoing a very rough time and trying to reposition themselves for
> the future. Please, lets give the benefit of the doubt to sombody who
> has done so much work on our behalf.
>
> --
> Ryan Singer
> Co-founder
> OpenDocument Fellowship
> 1-650-743-2785
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 11:50 PM, Gary Edwards <gary.edwards at da-vinci.us> wrote:
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> Chris Lilley's comments are in direct opposition to those we received a week
>> ago from Doug Shepers, the head of the CDF Workgroup. doug however asked
>> that we not publicise his comments until Sir Timothy has had a chance to
>> weigh in. Our CDF support is solid. Even within Sun and IBM!!!! They've
>> been arguing for years that CDF is the way to go. Today IBM admitted to us
>> that ODF is a transitional fiel format only. They know that CDF is the
>> future, and have spent enormous resources positioning WebSphere, Lotus
>> Notes, and the Eclipse Community in that direction. ODF is a transitional
>> desktop play only.
>>
>> The ODF mob has gone nuts trying to shut off the exits. The worst thing
>> they could have ever done is attack CDF. Watch. IBM admits that they lit
>> the fire, and now they can't control the tmob. The plan was to discredit us
>> personally. Now that CDF is under attack by the mob, IBM CALLED US, asking
>> for help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was a two plus
>> hour phone conference this afternoon. I kid you not.
>>
>> But hey, thanks for staying on top of this :)
>> ~ge~
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2007 9:08 AM, Ryan Singer <ryan.singer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forwarded conversation
>>> Subject: W3C Lead on CDF says OpenDocument Fellowship Position on CDF
>> Makes No Sense
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> From: <Andrew.Updegrove at gesmer.com>
>>> Date: Nov 9, 2007 8:21 AM
>>> To: Andrew.Updegrove at gesmer.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Earlier in the week, many technology reporters were wrestling with what to
>>> make of the OpenDocument Foundation's announcement that it was abandoning
>>> support for ODF in favor of CDF, a W3C specification-in-process that few
>>> had ever heard of, and no one seemed to know much about. Those that did
>>> examine CDF were left puzzled trying to figure out how it could possibly
>>> function as an alternative to ODF.
>>>
>>> To find out the facts, I interviewed Chris Lilley, the W3C lead for the
>> CDF
>>> project, and his answer couldn't have been more clear: "The one thing I'd
>>> really want your readers to know is that CDF was not created to be, and
>>> isn't suitable for use as, an office format." In fact, it isn't even an
>>> format at all - although it has been matched for export purposes with
>>> another W3C specification, called WICD - but WICD is a non-editable format
>>> intended for viewing only. Moreover, no one from the Foundation has
>> joined
>>> W3C, nor explained to W3C what the Foundation's founders have in mind.
>>>
>>> It is highly unfortunate that the founders of a tax exempt organization
>>> that solicited donations, "To support the community of volunteers in
>>> promoting, improving and providing user assistance for ODF and software
>>> designed to operate on data in this format," should publicly announce that
>>> it believes that ODF will fail. By endorsing a standard that has no
>>> rational relationship to office formats at all, they can only serve to
>>> confuse the marketplace and undermine the efforts of the global community
>>> they claimed to serve.
>>>
>>> Further details are here:
>>>
>> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071109070012244
>>> As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this
>>> list.
>>>
>>> Andrew Updegrove
>>> Gesmer Updegrove LLP
>>> 40 Broad Street
>>> Boston, Massachusetts 02109
>>> T: 617/350-6800
>>> F: 617/350-6878
>>> www.gesmer.com
>>> www.consortiuminfo.org
>>>
>>>
>>> *****************************************
>>> Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any
>> attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for
>> the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
>> (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations
>> governing tax practice.)
>>> Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA
>> 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878. This communication is
>> intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the
>> addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or
>> confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or
>> such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any
>> dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>> immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at (617) 350-6800 and notify the
>> sender by electronic mail. Please expunge this communication without making
>> any copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>> ----------
>>> From: Ryan Singer <ryan.singer at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Nov 9, 2007 9:01 AM
>>> To: Andrew.Updegrove at gesmer.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> OpenDocument Fellowship != OpenDocument Foundation. The Fellowship
>>> does not agree with the new direction the foundation has taken. Your
>>> subject line mentions the fellowship, while the rest of your email is
>>> about the foundation. Please send out a correction.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Singer
>>> Co-founder
>>> OpenDocument Fellowship
>>> 650-743-2785
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________
>>> Ryan Singer
>>> ----------
>>> From: <Andrew.Updegrove at gesmer.com>
>>> Date: Nov 9, 2007 9:02 AM
>>> To: Ryan.Singer at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> My sincere apologies - I'll change it immediately.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ryan Singer"
>>> < ryan.singer at gmai
>>> l.com> To
>>> Andrew.Updegrove at gesmer.com
>>> 11/09/2007 11:57 cc
>>> AM
>>> Subject
>>> Re: W3C Lead on CDF says
>>> Please respond to OpenDocument Fellowship Position on
>>> Ryan.Singer at gmail CDF Makes No Sense
>>> .com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________
>>> Ryan Singer
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> odf-discuss mailing list
>>> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
>>> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gary Edwards
>> da Vinci Corp
>> Redwood City, CA USA 94063
>> (650) 365-0899
>> (650) 888-2268 c.
>> gary.edwards at da-Vinci.us
>> http://da-Vinci.us
>> http://OpenStack.blogspot.com
>
>
>
More information about the odf-discuss
mailing list