[odf-discuss] Gnome Foundation and ECMA

[Pamela Jones]

Who are your corporate contributors?

Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <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
>