"Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up."

--Microsoft, internal document

Summary: A 'mole' funded by Open Source-hostile interests is revealed for what it is by a government Web site

TECHRIGHTS mentioned quite recently a "controlled opposition" approach which Microsoft uses to infiltrate and subvert panels. Here is a UK government site complaining about what Microsoft is doing:

e aware of our recently re-launched consultation on which we have been soliciting your views since 9th February 2012. One of our first discussion roundtables held on the 4th of April (Competition and European Interaction) was facilitated by Dr Andrew Hopkirk who blogged about the event for Computer Weekly and who was engaged by Cabinet Office as an independent facilitator on a pro-bono basis.

But guess who paid him? As André Rebentisch puts it:

The UK cabinet office washes its dirty laundry in the open. They accuse the facilitator of their controversial round table on open standards, Dr. Hopkirk, of a conflict of interest: an advisory role for an American software manufacturer which is an outspoken opponent of open standard policies.

Hopkirk is a backstabber, a deceiver, and a manipulator. May he be banned from panels for trying to subvert them for secret paymasters. Based on what we heard through the grapevine, Hopkirk did this before. It's not an isolated incident. ⬆