Comments on: Australian Event Organised to Discuss OOXML http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/ooxml-event-australia/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/ooxml-event-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-3806 Roy Schestowitz Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:43:56 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/26/ooxml-event-australia/#comment-3806 Pia, Thanks for some enlightening additions, such as information about involvement by Google and IBM. I can honestly say that I'm still inclined to believe that: <ol> <li>Being there to speak to those involved will be an excellent way to eliminate disinformation</li> <li>Being there in the first place gives the impression that the event is impartial</li> </ol> To say more on the latter point, if Microsoft shows up at an event by itself, then it's virtually a case of preaching to the converted or sharing one's own insight (i.e. Kool-Aid). People can see that. More on this in my last point. I've been following the situation involving <a href="http://boycottnovell.com/index.php?s=ooxml+australia" rel="nofollow">OOXML in Australia</a> for quite some time and I've also come across manipulation and lies (e.g. someone arguing that IBM is affiliated with CompTIA, which is actually a Microsoft lobbying arm). Regarding the last sentence, there is no theory here. I only stated a fact when I progressed to the second point (press coverage). The fact is that the Foundation's statement gets used against ODF. The presence alone is damaging (in my humble opinion). ODF = industry OOXML = one company By attending the latter, a one-man act suddenly becomes an symphony (no pun intended. Pia,

Thanks for some enlightening additions, such as information about involvement by Google and IBM. I can honestly say that I’m still inclined to believe that:

  1. Being there to speak to those involved will be an excellent way to eliminate disinformation
  2. Being there in the first place gives the impression that the event is impartial

To say more on the latter point, if Microsoft shows up at an event by itself, then it’s virtually a case of preaching to the converted or sharing one’s own insight (i.e. Kool-Aid). People can see that. More on this in my last point.

I’ve been following the situation involving OOXML in Australia for quite some time and I’ve also come across manipulation and lies (e.g. someone arguing that IBM is affiliated with CompTIA, which is actually a Microsoft lobbying arm).

Regarding the last sentence, there is no theory here. I only stated a fact when I progressed to the second point (press coverage). The fact is that the Foundation’s statement gets used against ODF. The presence alone is damaging (in my humble opinion).

ODF = industry
OOXML = one company

By attending the latter, a one-man act suddenly becomes an symphony (no pun intended.

]]> By: Pia Waugh http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/ooxml-event-australia/comment-page-1/#comment-3803 Pia Waugh Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:23:58 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/26/ooxml-event-australia/#comment-3803 Yes I'm helping organise an event that investigates the technical and legal feasibility of OOXML, and yes Microsoft will be there to see if they can in fact answer all the outstanding questions therein. I do not see what problem you could have with that considering they are the creators of this "standard", and if we want the conversation to be taken seriously, boycotting their participation in the event would reduce the event credibility with Australian decision makers in this space. If indeed they are unable to competently answer technical and legal concerns, it makes the case for rejecting ISO standardisation of OOXML stronger. There will also be representation from Google, Fujitsu, IBM, Linux Australia, Open Source Industry Australia and expert representatives from New Zealand. The Australian standards body gave an abstaining vote last time round, and we are trying to ensure they have all the information to make a decisive vote, which given much of the evidence (and especially if Microsoft doesn't have answers for the many questions asked) should be a no vote. I do not appreciate you inferring some foul play when I am trying to run an event that will clarify the situation to the people making the decisions. Please don't be such an obstructionist, nor such a conspiracy theorist. Yes I’m helping organise an event that investigates the technical and legal feasibility of OOXML, and yes Microsoft will be there to see if they can in fact answer all the outstanding questions therein. I do not see what problem you could have with that considering they are the creators of this “standard”, and if we want the conversation to be taken seriously, boycotting their participation in the event would reduce the event credibility with Australian decision makers in this space.

If indeed they are unable to competently answer technical and legal concerns, it makes the case for rejecting ISO standardisation of OOXML stronger.

There will also be representation from Google, Fujitsu, IBM, Linux Australia, Open Source Industry Australia and expert representatives from New Zealand.

The Australian standards body gave an abstaining vote last time round, and we are trying to ensure they have all the information to make a decisive vote, which given much of the evidence (and especially if Microsoft doesn’t have answers for the many questions asked) should be a no vote. I do not appreciate you inferring some foul play when I am trying to run an event that will clarify the situation to the people making the decisions. Please don’t be such an obstructionist, nor such a conspiracy theorist.

]]>