Comments

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 04:52:50

  The pace is increasing because you're out there actively looking for devils and not spending any time doing research. I suppose the only thing that keeps you away from posting snide insinuations is the development of your propaganda artwork.
  
  I do not support Novell's actions. I do not support OOXML. I never have. But I definitely do not support your nasty website, your baseless insinuations or your disrespectful attacks on the community.
  
  You should be ashamed of yourself.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 05:01:06

  "Attacks on the community," you say?
  
  You mean like Novell spreading FUD against competitors that sell GNU/Linux? Or the GNOME Foundation participating in a process that revolves around what stifles ODF and therefore choice in the enterprise (a proprietary format called OOXML)?
  
  As far as I know it's Novell that attacks the community (along with its new partner). I'm a Free software and Linux advocate, among other things (check my record on the Web if you doubt this). Novell is not my friend. Novell is only the friend of its shareholders and those naive enough to not realise what is going on behind the scenes.
  
  I am not as stupid as Novell and Microsoft need me to be, so I share my understanding of the situation. It's my right.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 05:05:24

  You have unreasonably attacked the GNOME community, and in particular the integrity of GNOME Foundation directors, and even my wife by association. You have done so without doing a reasonable amount of research, or asking any questions even when the door has been very clearly open for you. Your attitude is divisive. You are actively looking for fault and ways to attribute blame. It is shameful.
  
  Novell is not relevant to your attacks on GNOME and members of the GNOME community, don't hide behind that to rationalise your nastiness.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 05:09:17

  If you think Novell has spread FUD, why do you think that an honourable and effective way to combat it is to spread your own? Your credibility and impact is weakened by your choice to include silly, amateurish, propaganda imagery, and your personal and snide attacks on individuals who deserve respect. Shameful.
  
  I would love to see a good website that illustrated the problems with Novell's partnership with Microsoft, that was respectable and strong in its convictions, that used evidence and first-hand material from the community and other companies to support its mission.
  
  You have not created that website. You have created nasty, muck-raking, gutter trash. It is shameful.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 05:35:19

  Novell is not relevant to your attacks on GNOME and members of the GNOME community, don’t hide behind that to rationalise your nastiness.

  
  
  Novell employs Miguel, which is a vice president. He actively supports OOXML and he is still very influential in GNOME (no matter how hard you try to deny this).

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 05:38:42

  If you think Novell has spread FUD, why do you think that an honourable and effective way to combat it is to spread your own?

  
  
  Novell attacks Linux vendors, effectively. I'm an independent individual and a former (proud at the time) SuSE user.
  
  

  I would love to see a good website that illustrated the problems with Novell’s partnership with Microsoft, that was respectable and strong in its convictions, that used evidence and first-hand material from the community and other companies to support its mission.

  
  
  Welcome to Boycott Novell.
  
  

  You have not created that website. You have created nasty, muck-raking, gutter trash. It is shameful.

  
  
  I didn't create this Web site. I joined in.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 05:39:17

  Miguel is not influential in GNOME. I deny it because it's the truth, and based on my knowledge of the GNOME community, and your obstinate refusal to do even basic research, I think I'd have a better idea than you.
  
  If anything, these days, Miguel is seen as an irrelevant embarrassment among the majority of GNOME developers. But he is still respected as our founder.
  
  Don't think so highly of yourself as to tell me what is happening in GNOME, Roy.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 05:40:42

  Welcome to Boycott Novell.

  
  
  This site is not the site I described. It's a shameful embarrassment. You ought to be doing good work, but you're not.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 05:45:58

  Miguel is not influential in GNOME.

  
  
  From what I was able to gather from people close to such matters, the stance of Michael Meeks on some of these issues is not much different. In general, Novell is still listed as a company that ushers OOXML as an ISO standard.
  
  

  This site is not the site I described. It’s a shameful embarrassment. You ought to be doing good work, but you’re not.

  
  
  I believe that I do decent work, thank you very much.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 05:54:28

  From what I was able to gather from people close to such matters, the stance of Michael Meeks on some of these issues is not much different.

  
  
  People close to such matters?! Dude, you have a DIRECTOR OF THE GNOME FOUNDATION AND FIVE-YEAR RELEASE MANAGER right here saying his door is open to you, and yet you front up incorrect information from nameless sources as a defence? This is absolutely laughable.
  
  Anyone who knows anything about GNOME knows that Michael too is no longer contributing to GNOME (he sends patches very rarely, and usually through SUSE bug channels).
  
  

  I believe that I do decent work, thank you very much.

  
  
  You're horrifyingly ill-informed and obstinately refusing to speak to knowledgeable sources, which is plain as day from the example you've given to me on a silver platter above. This is not decent work. This is laughable.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 06:07:56

  Anyone who knows anything about GNOME knows that Michael too is no longer contributing to GNOME (he sends patches very rarely, and usually through SUSE bug channels).

  
  
  I talked about this from Novell's perspective, not GNOME's. I didn't even know about his participation in or contributions to GNOME.
  
  

  You’re horrifyingly ill-informed and obstinately refusing to speak to knowledgeable sources, which is plain as day from the example you’ve given to me on a silver platter above. This is not decent work. This is laughable.

  
  
  Almost every item that I post here is based on at least one reputable (external) source. I cite my sources too. Such sources typically quote (or are based on research that involves) people who are field experts.
  
  You take a lot of cheap shots at myself and at this Web site whenever you feel pressured. Please refrain from doing this because it raises tensions unnecessarily.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 06:18:15

  I talked about this from Novell’s perspective, not GNOME’s. I didn’t even know about his participation in or contributions to GNOME.

  
  
  Now you're trying to avoid the issue again. First you tried to tell me that Miguel was "still influential in GNOME" (no matter how much I denied it). I said that he wasn't, a truth that is blindingly obvious. Then you raised Michael Meeks as if he were associated with GNOME. In this thread of discussion, Novell was not at all relevant, so don't fall back on that rationalisation.
  
  

  Almost every item that I post here is based on at least one reputable (external) source. I cite my sources too. Such sources typically quote (or are based on research that involves) people who are field experts.

  
  
  In this case your "people close to such matters" were not cited, were not even in the vicinity of right, and clearly not "field experts". When you're making comments on GNOME, and arguing with a director of the GNOME Foundation Board, surely trying to justify your position with a nameless source is a fool's errand?
  
  I mean, you seriously tried to tell me that you know more about what's going on in GNOME than I do. That would be hilarious, if it didn't so perfectly demonstrate the problem with your attitude -- and ultimately, your output.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 06:27:38

  Now you’re trying to avoid the issue again. First you tried to tell me that Miguel was “still influential in GNOME” (no matter how much I denied it). I said that he wasn’t, a truth that is blindingly obvious. Then you raised Michael Meeks as if he were associated with GNOME. In this thread of discussion, Novell was not at all relevant, so don’t fall back on that rationalisation.

  
  
  You are not correct. I said:
  
  

  Novell employs Miguel, which is a vice president.

  
  
  We discussed Novell, which is what the boycott is about (see title of this page). It's not about GNOME, which I still use sometimes. There's a relationship between Novell and GNOME (let's not open the can of worms that is a Mono/GNOME relationship now).
  
  

  In this case your “people close to such matters” were not cited, were not even in the vicinity of right, and clearly not “field experts”. When you’re making comments on GNOME, and arguing with a director of the GNOME Foundation Board, surely trying to justify your position with a nameless source is a fool’s errand?

  
  
  All of this was stated publicly. I could give you names and chase the references.
  
  

  I mean, you seriously tried to tell me that you know more about what’s going on in GNOME than I do. That would be hilarious, if it didn’t so perfectly demonstrate the problem with your attitude — and ultimately, your output.

  
  
  You know FAR more than anyone about GNOME. I don't question your authority. I only worry that you don't publicly say everything that there is to be said (selective dissemination of information).
  
  For example, today I have discovered that the GNOME Foundation does not oppose OOXML. It does not necessarily support OOXML as an ISO standard, but it does not oppose it, either. To me, that speaks volumes.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 06:37:03

  There’s a relationship between Novell and GNOME (let’s not open the can of worms that is a Mono/GNOME relationship now).

  
  
  There is an institutional relationship between GNOME and Novell. Novell ship GNOME, and contribute financially to the GNOME Foundation as an Advisory Board member. There is no institutional relationship between GNOME and Mono. Do you have any questions about this, or are you going to continue to spout off without a reasonable level of knowledge about these issues?
  
  

  All of this was stated publicly. I could give you names and chase the references.

  
  
  Hop to it. Show me what you're made of.
  
  

  I only worry that you don’t publicly say everything that there is to be said (selective dissemination of information).

  
  
  Bullshit. More FUD and conspiracy theories.
  
  

  For example, today I have discovered that the GNOME Foundation does not oppose OOXML. It does not necessarily support OOXML as an ISO standard, but it does not oppose it, either. To me, that speaks volumes.

  
  
  Read my answer again and answer the question I asked. You didn't get an answer, and you didn't find out anything.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 06:48:41

  There is no institutional relationship between GNOME and Mono.

  
  
  I'd add emphasis to "institutional".
  
  

  Do you have any questions about this, or are you going to continue to spout off without a reasonable level of knowledge about these issues?

  
  
  I didn't say or insinuate anything. I just know it's something that you would rather not discuss. Technically speaking, at the moment, GNOME and Mono can be separated. I believe that you cannot promise me that this will remain the case in the long run (I've pretty much asked).
  
  

  Hop to it. Show me what you’re made of.

  
  
  Regarding Michael Meeks, Stephane wrote something detailed about it in this Web site (a comment about Moonlight). I have also read various interviews with Michael Meeks in Tux Deluxe (IIRC), a Sun blog, and in ZDNet (the series of 'Clippy' articles). I have a basic understanding when it comes to his views on OOXML. I wrote about this before (with concern).
  
  

  Read my answer again and answer the question I asked. You didn’t get an answer, and you didn’t find out anything.

  
  
  So I'll ask for the third time. Does the GNOME Foundation oppose OOXML as an ISO standard? I'm looking for a yes/no answer. Mind you, it's possible to oppose OOXML as an ISO standard and if it is approved by the ISO anyway, you can still have it implemented. The commitments are separate.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 06:54:32

  I’d add emphasis to “institutional”.

  
  
  Of course you are, because you're looking for mud, no matter what I have already explained about GNOME and Mono on this site. You'll keep bringing it up as FUD no matter what I say.
  
  

  I just know it’s something that you would rather not discuss. Technically speaking, at the moment, GNOME and Mono can be separated. I believe that you cannot promise me that this will remain the case in the long run (I’ve pretty much asked).

  
  
  I'm absolutely happy to discuss it. I've sent you my phone number by email three times in the last hour. Here it is again: +61 2 9318 0284. I don't think being forced by FUD to answer questions in your blog comments section is at all reasonable.
  
  Of course I can't promise you that GNOME and Mono won't ever be inseparable. That would be a stupid thing to say. I can tell you, and I HAVE TOLD YOU, that the community is unlikely to ever accept this. And yet, you bring it up over and over again as FUD.
  
  

  So I’ll ask for the third time. Does the GNOME Foundation oppose OOXML as an ISO standard? I’m looking for a yes/no answer.

  
  
  You've asked that before, and I've answered before: Of course. That was clear in our statement. Your next question was "does GNOME oppose OOXML" which was nebulous and irrelevant.

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 06:58:38

  In another post, you suggest that I'm only posting on this site because there's some truth in your accusations and insinuations. In another post, you've questioned the integrity of GNOME Foundation directors including myself and by association, my wife. Elsewhere you've said that you hold no ill-will towards GNOME and that you're not attacking it.
  
  Why should I continue to post here if you are so unappreciative of my input and disrespectful of my answers, and so viciously nasty to me and my community?
  
  You do not even pay the respect to ask questions in an appropriate fashion, or research the accusations and insinuations you make.
  
  Very soon, I will no longer contribute to this site. You have done nothing over the last 12 hours to make me think that you are going to change your nasty, obstinate and reprehensible attitude or tactics.
  
  I have paid you the respect to contribute here, in spite of your behaviour. You have sledged me, my wife, my community and my friends.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 07:02:12

  Thanks.
  
  I now know that the GNOME Foundation opposes OOXML as an ISO standard.
  
  As I said before, I cannot see this type of thing explicitly (not necessarily the same phrasing though) included in the formal statement. That's the reasons I carried on asking (you answered this before on behalf of yourself, but never on behalf of the Foundation, unless I missed something).

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 07:06:34

  You should have known that when you read the statement, and when I answered that question EXPLICITLY on this site. The question I did not answer was "does the GNOME Foundation oppose OOXML", which is nebulous and irrelevant.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 07:07:17

  I have paid you the respect to contribute here, in spite of your behaviour. You have sledged me, my wife, my community and my friends.

  
  
  Once again you turn this into an act of drama and resort to some sort of a personal attack. I don't understand this. If anyone is being attacked here personally, it's me (and you're attempting to discredit this site also).
  
  You say that I question the integrity of the directors and as a matter of fact, I'm not alone. Have another look at the mailing lists where several others fail to comprehend the Foundation's involvement in ECMA (for OOXML). These are supposed to be your trusted colleagues, who share the same goals.
  
  Why, why, why are you still in this ECMA charade?

• Jeff Waugh

  2007-11-26 07:15:53

  Once again you turn this into an act of drama and resort to some sort of a personal attack. I don’t understand this.

  
  
  This is not a personal attack on you. However, you have sledged me, my wife, my community and my friends.
  
  

  You say that I question the integrity of the directors and as a matter of fact, I’m not alone.

  
  
  Again you're avoiding accountability for your statements. You made rash insinuations about GNOME Foundation directors including me and by association my wife. You've never actually done any research to back any of that up or answer any of the insinuations you've made.
  
  

  Have another look at the mailing lists where several others fail to comprehend the Foundation’s involvement in ECMA (for OOXML).

  
  
  That is completely unrelated to your disrespectful sledging of respected members of the community and my wife. Don't change the subject.
  
  

  Why, why, why are you still in this ECMA charade?

  
  
  Read our statement, and stop avoiding accountability for *your* statements.
  
  I do not demand apologies. I think that is pointless and does not result in any kind of real apology anyway. But I'll demand accountability of you. If you are going to question the integrity of me, my fellow directors and my wife, then you better front up about it, do the research, and take responsibility for it. If you think it's worth writing on this site, you better think it's worth standing behind.
  
  What's it going to be, Roy? More FUD, or some actual solid facts and some respect for FLOSS projects and contributors?

• Bass Fisher

  2007-11-26 07:22:49

  Looking at the big picture of the efforts of this website over the last 12+ months, I heartily applaud the continual discovery and analysis of information. If people let the subject (MS's true intentions, and how Novell has helped enable them) die, or even smolder, then MS will win, and every small or medium size company (that does not own 5,000+ patents) will be forced to pay a software tax to MS, IBM, and likely a few other big boys; just to participate in the software market. This is not just Linux or open source software companies. The eventual target is all software and technology companies.
  
  MS, and many other large companies, in high tech and other industries, have gotten away with gaining acceptance of a damaging position, or set of actions, through continual bullying effort on the topic; while the voices that try to keep the "stop the madness" mindset in the public, slowly give up the fight. "Conditioning the market" as some call it.
  
  This topic is big, has huge potential impact, and I personally thank you for keeping the "stop the madness" spirit alive on such an important issue for the world of technology, and users of technology by association.
  
  Keep up the good fight.
  
  California Bass Fisher

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 07:24:05

  That is completely unrelated to your disrespectful sledging of respected members of the community and my wife. Don’t change the subject.

  
  
  We've been through this already in a separate threads. Let me find it so that we can do a GOTO rather than a REPEAT.
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/24/mono-patents-taboo/#comment-3613
  
  

  What’s it going to be, Roy? More FUD, or some actual solid facts and some respect for FLOSS projects and contributors?

  
  
  I'll investigate more in the future. I am still allowed to quote others without having you slapping my wrist for basing my assessment on what others conclude. There isn't always a black and white, as your membership in this ECMA thing has proven.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 07:30:04

  Thanks for the kind words, Bass Fisher.
  
  

  ...forced to pay a software tax to MS, IBM, and likely a few other big boys; just to participate in the software market. This is not just Linux or open source software companies. The eventual target is all software and technology companies.

  
  
  This isn't a phenomenon that affects only technology companies. It isn't a unique problem. Just look at the music and clothing industries, for example. That's something that I talk about in other Web sites and if there's anything to learn from all of this is that the powerful companies always try to squash the small threats rather than improve their own products and services. Any kind gestures of theirs should be approached or accepted with great caution.

• SubSonica

  2007-11-26 13:53:51

  Dear Roy: It is always good to hear arguments that quetion the massive FUD-machinery and statu-quo propaganda from the proprietary software established oligopolists.
  
  As to Jeff's position: Of course Roy can be wrong at times, but, if something, he represents a counter-weight to the avobe cited marketing FUD. I think it is up to the readers of the site to balance both sources of information and decide to which level they trust one or the other.
  
  About Gnome involvement in ECMA TC-45, it is concerning for me. While I read in the official statement some very reasonable words:
  
  "a process that is rapidly turning standards into industrial weapons to the detriment of our users, software and communities. We face the very real danger that standards will suffer the same fate as patents: created to spur innovation and sharing, but manipulated to control and restrain."
  
  The truth is that GNOME is someow actively participating in the ECMA process and that provides ammo for microsoft's FUD machinery, in a simmilar way that the deal with novell provides them with ammo for the patents threats, no matter how much Novell denies it is substantiating microsoft's claims: The words says something but the facts and actions seem to go the opposite way (quite the way microsoft needs): Please jeff, don€´t take this as a personal attack, it is just my personal reflection on the matter.
  
  Imagine that nobody outside the microsoft sphere of influence would work with them in their own fake standard (not even to ammend the poor documentation)... heck!, MSOOXML woul fail by its own inconsistency and by the mere fact that it is endorsed by a single vendor and no alternative implementation exists!!! If the GNOME foundation is taking the work to implement MSXOOML it will only be useful tio microsoft to say "look someone else is implementing our formats ERGO it should be awarded the ISO standard", you know their modus operandi and you know they will use that argument to death.
  
  With OpenOffice, the FOSS community was forcing microsoft hand, with ODF as ISO standard we had the perfect weapon to make Microsoft to abide to standards: Microsoft should be supporting ODF and not the reverse!, how comes it is the FOSS community (GNOME in this case) the one who is striving to suppoprt a fake standard nobody asked for in the first place?
  
  Jeff, serious: I can€´t see no real advantage whatsoever in making Microsoft's work to ammend the faulty documentation and to manufacture an alternative implementation of the format even before it is aproved as ISO standard (a format that not even Microsoft is committed to respect in the future, as Microsoft's representatives themselves have publicly stated), but the drawbacks of supporting microsoft's strategy (albeit unknowingly or unwillingly are as obvious as the drawbacks of the patent deal)

• SubSonica

  2007-11-26 14:46:40

  Is this a pattern? In fact these two statements sound simmilar, much as the actions before them look similarly dangerous:
  
  Novell: Sign patent protection racket deal with Microsoft. And afterwards, they try to do the damage control:
  
  "We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."
  
  Gnome: Becomes involved in the process to standarize a format that nobody -except Microsoft- wants neither needs. Afterwards they try to do the damage control:
  
  "The GNOME Foundation's support for Jody's participation in TC45-M does not indicate endorsement for, or contribution to, ISO standardisation of the Microsoft Office Open XML formats."
  
  I would rather see an actually brave and coherent attitude from Novell and Gnome in the line of this (THANK YOU AGAIN, François):
  
  http://blog.mandriva.com/2007/06/19/we-will-not-go-to-canossa/ "We also believe what we see, and up to now, there has been absolutely no hard evidence from any of the FUD propagators that Linux and open source applications are in breach of any patents. So we think that, as in any democracy, people are innocent unless proven guilty and we can continue working in good faith.
  
  So we don’t believe it is necessary for us to get protection from Microsoft to do our job or to pay protection money to anyone."
  
  Only if the community stands united against Microsoft it will be able to resist the coporation's assaults against our freedom to use, study, modify and re-distribute Free Software.

• eet

  2007-11-26 16:12:02

  Well, stop splitting the community then. Novell is part of the community.
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll

• SubSonica

  2007-11-26 16:25:30

  Well, stop splitting the community then.
  
  Yeah, yeah, that's what we all agree on. (Well, all except Microsoft)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-11-26 19:49:15

  The truth is that GNOME is someow actively participating in the ECMA process and that provides ammo for microsoft’s FUD machinery, in a simmilar way that the deal with novell provides them with ammo for the patents threats

  
  
  Going to the extreme, Hiser, Marbux and Gary had the same effect. Actions are the best way to support ODF and reject OOXML. Anything else will be used against Free software.

• eet

  2007-11-26 20:39:43

  What actions? A sit-in in front of the Redmond MS-headquarters, waving big 'No OOXML!' placards? OOXML will become a dominat format, like .DOC is today, with or without the blessing of any standardization organization.
  
  The only question is, will it be easy for open-source software to implement OOXML-support because the specifications have been sanitized, or will it be hard or impossible to implement because either they haven't been sanitized and M$ could push it through standardization anyhow or it fails standardization and M$ redefines the format at will from release to release of MS Office.
  
  The question is not whether or not OOXML-support in open-source software will be implemented. It _will_ be because there is demand.
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll

• Repre Hendor

  2007-11-26 23:28:55

  Roy said:

  "[Miguel] actively supports OOXML and he is still very influential in GNOME (no matter how hard you try to deny this)."

  
  
  Jeff said:
  
  

  "Miguel is not influential in GNOME. I deny it because it’s the truth [....] If anything, these days, Miguel is seen as an irrelevant embarrassment among the majority of GNOME developers. But he is still respected as our founder."

  
  
  According to the minutes of the Gnome Foundation Board meeting happeing on 15th of November 2007 (and published a week later, that was: last Thursday), for topic '4)' it is noted:
  
  

  GNOME President
  
  Miguel has officially resigned as the GNOME President.

  
  
  Uh huh. So up until a week ago, Miguel officially was the GNOME President?
  
  Looks like Jeff himself thinks Miguel is an irrelevant embarrassment to GNOME, so that he even avoids mentioning this 'hot news' which reached the public eye only 4 days ago (even though it could have served to strengthen his point).
  
  Why did Miguel resign? Was he put under pressure to do so? Was it because of the continuous negative wave of publicity he is causing for Gnome (see his infamous "OOXML is a superb standard" stance...)?

• Repre Hendor

  2007-11-26 23:34:34

  Roy said:

  "[Miguel] actively supports OOXML and he is still very influential in GNOME (no matter how hard you try to deny this)."

  
  
  Jeff said:
  
  

  "Miguel is not influential in GNOME. I deny it because it’s the truth [....] If anything, these days, Miguel is seen as an irrelevant embarrassment among the majority of GNOME developers. But he is still respected as our founder."

  
  
  According to the minutes of the Gnome Foundation Board meeting happeing on 15th of November 2007 (and published a week later, that was: last Thursday), for topic '4)' it is noted:
  
  

  GNOME President
  
  Miguel has officially resigned as the GNOME President.

  
  
  Uh huh. So up until a week ago, Miguel officially was the GNOME President?
  
  Looks like Jeff himself thinks Miguel is an irrelevant embarrassment to GNOME, so that he even avoids mentioning this 'hot news' which reached the public eye only 4 days ago (even though it could have served to strengthen his point).
  
  Why did Miguel resign? Was he put under pressure to do so? Was it because of the continuous negative wave of publicity he is causing for Gnome (see his infamous "OOXML is a superb standard" stance...)?