[odf-discuss] Gnome Foundation and ECMA

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Lars Noodén">

> > The GNOME Foundation is not "sponsoring" the development of OOXML. We
> > are supporting Jody's participation in the ECMA working group...
> 
> So, in other words, GNOME really is backing development of MSOOXML via
> Ecma. And that is exactly the point in the open letter.

No, that is not a logical outcome of what I said. The ECMA process, in terms
of Microsoft-external participation, is substantially about documenting what
Microsoft has delivered to the group. So Jody's participation, as I've noted
many times, is principally about pushing Microsoft to document OOXML as much
as he possibly can.

> GNOME could easily clear up this misunderstanding by publishing a
> statement clarifying their opposition to MSOOXML, the independence of
> individual developers to do what they want, and the support for ISO's "one
> standard" policy.

The GNOME Foundation could say such a thing, but it wouldn't necessarily
reflect the opinions of GNOME developers, corporate contributors, etc.

Besides, in what way do you suggest we "oppose OOXML"? Entirely? Should we
oppose implementation of it? Should we oppose our users using it? Should we
stop our developers from supporting it? Should we oppose its acceptance as
an ISO standard? Most of these are entirely unrealistic.

> It's really darn hard to try to say with a straight face that GNOME is
> not sponsoring/"sponsoring"/'sponsoring'/«sponsoring» the development of
> MSOOXML, if GNOME is financially supporting (sponsoring)
> participation/membership of a GNOME developer who is there in his role
> as GNOME developer.

We're not funding the "development of OOXML" in any way whatsoever. We're
supporting the participation of one of our best hackers to ensure that we
have a voice in the ECMA process, pushing hard for complete documentation.

> (e.g. "we're not sponsoring development against open standards, we're just
> paying for a developer to work against open standards")

We are not paying for a developer to work against open standards. You might
have to explain that suggestion in every sense.

> Then GNOME should make an official statement to that effect, because the
> current appearances are that GNOME is backing Jody's actions to undermine
> open standards.  Look at the comments on Slashdot and you'll see that
> there is an uncommon level of agreement with that assessment.

I'm not particularly concerned about the opinions of Slashdot posters. :-)

> If the GNOME board says flat out that this is a misunderstanding and that
> 	1) no GNOME money is going to Ecma

This is true in that the GNOME Foundation has joined as a not-for-profit
organisation, which does not require payment. I'm not sure why this is
relevant.

> 	2) GNOME developers are free do want they want, but as 	individuals, not
> 	as reps of GNOME

Jody represents GNOME on the ECMA working group. His participation is
facilitated by our organisational membership of ECMA. His opinions, still,
are entirely his own, and we have the utmost respect for his experience and
familiarity with the issues involved.

> 	3) GNOME opposes MSOOXML, as MSOOXML undermines interoperability efforts

Jody's participation in ECMA doesn't undermine interoperability efforts. The
documentation he's managed to drag out of Microsoft will actually improve
interoperability for Free Software (and between document formats, be they
open standards, proprietary, old school Microsoft binaries, etc).

> 	4) GNOME backs ISO's "one standard" policy

We'd love it if organisations would focus on collaborating around a single
standard, but I'm not sure we'd say this as a matter of opposition to OOXML.
Think about this for a minute: When we put Free video codecs on the agenda
for ISO standardisation, would you like someone to come back with, "But we
already have MPEG4"? Perhaps arguing for "one standard" is not the best way
to achieve your aims.

I think an important distinction to consider is that GNOME, supported by the
GNOME Foundation, is not principally an advocacy organisation: We write and
ship code for users who work in the real world.

It sounds as if you feel you have a right to set GNOME Foundation policy and
messaging... I'm not sure that's the case! :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia        http://lca2008.linux.org.au/
 
       "The worst vice is ad-vice." - Al Pacino, The Devil's Advocate