If you’re not eet, we have a problem. Can you confirm that, Roy, about the censorship?

Yes, he still tries posting every day (abusive stuff, as always), but I’ve got this under control, I think. He is the one reason we needed moderation and the only person to whom this applies. Everyone is encouraged to follow the links and see what we have in our hands because it isn’t just the voice of a critic.

So Roy can send you the interview, but you’ll not complain that the questions are not the “right questions” and will answer them no matter what they look like to you? Of course no questions with personal attacks, just asking about what is happening and we are *wondering*. What you think, Roy?

Sounds fair. As you say later, just getting answers (assuming these address the “right questions”) doesn’t ensure everything is resolved.

what do you expect from me, I’m just a simple guy, not the secret service.

At least is the kind of people I think are posting comments here – Roy, me, you, Jeff, Jim – no secret service agents around. And that’s good, because we’ll not face that kind of “if I tell you the truth, I must kill you” thing.
Btw, you could tell us who you are, not for use on personal attacks, but since everybody here is inserting some personal references, it will be fine if you do so also. Kind of “fair game”.

BUT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME THAT ROY HAS BEEN BOUGHT OUT! It all perfectly fits. You cannot prove me wrong!

That’s ok for me, I can’t prove that. I’m curious about the Roy answer. And Roy, if this guy is not eet, what you have to say about the censoship he told us?

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

So I guess that would make it okay if I said. Roy has been bought out by Appel to make Linux users look geeky, malevolent and paranoid.

You ask me to prove that? Well, Roy and Steve certainly won’t admit their secret arrangements. And no, I don’t have recordings of their secret backroom-talks about a job-offer for Roy, or photos of cash changing its own; what do you expect from me, I’m just a simple guy, not the secret service.

BUT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME THAT ROY HAS BEEN BOUGHT OUT! It all perfectly fits. You cannot prove me wrong!

“See, I’m not insinuating that you’re lying, Jeff, but I can’t just trust you’re right because *you* just tell me that you right.”
Well I am insinuating that Roy is a complete headcase and I rather blieve Jeff’s word because he is a pro and does useful work for GNOME – in sharp contrast to the self-indulgent character-murdering that Roy is busying himself with.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

1. You were banned because your comments became relentless ad hominem attacks without content.

2. The rest of the world not “against” Roy: another empty ad hominem attack.

If you are not a hired gun/instigator, you are redeemable, but it will take something more than drive-by insults.

Re: asking questions and making answers available.

How much is it worth to you? He he, just kidding. Certainly I consider any thoughtful answers coming from Gnome that shed light on the issues surrounding its participation on OOXML work of the utmost importance and would feel it to be my duty to share that information. But can I suggest something even better?

Jeff, two things:

1. You can see the nature of the questions I’ve posted here. I’m sure that there are a great many other people out there, despite the eet isomorphisms’ claims to the contrary, that are asking similar questions . Gnome can at least start by crafting a public response to these issues. You should know better than most, having worked with talented software people, we are a creative bunch, and left to our own devices we will fill in the “blanks” with our own creative efforts. It’s what we do. We are not sheep. You speak of “communities” but there is at least some who would probably, under “normal circumstances” consider themselves part of the Gnome community, side-by-side helping to bring free software to the world. But, by the nature of how FLOSS has come into being there are many forces that seek to undermine our efforts. Now, we see a pillar of free software, Gnome, actively engaging one of the most aggressive antagonists of free software. The nature of that engagement is confounding. Some (many?), who have been following the rise of FLOSS are gravely concerned that either Gnome has been co-opted or is acting is an ill-thought-out manner. So you see, the community that you have been speaking of, certainly a community I (and Roy for that matter), generally see ourselves a part of is being “split” because of an action Gnome has taken. All issues about personal integrity of you, Roy, your wife, Miguel de Icaza, etc. are secondary what is primary is we want “our community” to be a “safe place”. One where we can remain confident that our efforts will, in word and in deed, help bring freedom to the world. Like it or not, Roy really is a messenger. The message may be the result of fermentations in his imagination, but his concerns are resonating. The concerns are emerging because one of our free software pillars, Gnome, is acting in a way we either cannot understand or agree with. Why this concern? Why all this angst? Why are so many “good people” getting caught in this net? Because of the lack of quality information coming from Gnome. Again, Gnome has put out information concerning some of the history of the OOXML work, ok good. But it could do better about allaying some of the fears that have been developing:

- What does Gnome expect to achieve?
- What will it mean to FLOSS if OOXML does not get approved? What will Gnome’s actions be to “ensure interoperability” in a world (and you seem to indicate that this is inevitable) with OOXML out there while not increasing the likelihood that people will have to “interoperate” in fear?
- What will it mean to FLOSS if OOXML does get approved? What if the ISO (now publicly documented as hijacked by Microsoft) approves (something you also seem to indicate is inevitable) OOXML under not the best terms? What about the extensions that are in use but neither documented nor likely to be documented because Microsoft clearly wants to retain a wedge? What about the likely behavior of Microsoft to change their implementation of OOXML?

Another way to look at this is Gnome setting itself up for another Pyhrric victory like the recent “EU anti-trust victory against Microsoft”?

These are the general nature of the questions I (and may others, I’m sure you are aware) would be asking, and I agree that answering them in the comments section of some arbitrary blog is not the way to go about doing this, so put up a page answering these and many other questions on the Gnome site “engage” the issue with information.

2. The approach you have been taking with Roy is getting tiresome. All of this rancor can dissipate with “information”. Constantly putting Roy on the defensive isn’t helping. “Engage” this faction of the community you speak of by the information we crave, the information you and “yours” posses. Take the lead and publish information on the Gnome site that addresses the issues raised here. Like it or not, all of our “ego” related issues such as the claims about integrity or not is really, truly secondary, FLOSS will prosper because “our community” is “open” and it is the information about our actions that strengthen our cause, not the particular people. Remember, there will be a (very sad) day when even RMS is no longer with us, but the “cause” needs to continue. Ping-pong insult fests aren’t helping anybody

I had a hard time using a proxy in order to get this message through. Roy censors-out any comments that don’t agree with his view. This casts a bad light on his love for freedom IMHO.

If you’re not eet, we have a problem. Can you confirm that, Roy, about the censorship?

I made it pretty clear in my comment that I’d let him publish them. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to expect people to answer serious questions about serious issues in the comments section of a website. This is not the right way to go about research.

Jeff, it’s your opinion, and as you can see, not just here, there’s another opinions about that. You need to consider that, IMHO.

I’ve said on many, many occasions that I’m happy to answer questions about the issues, and I even created an opportunity for him to do so in the form of an interview.

So Roy can send you the interview, but you’ll not complain that the questions are not the “right questions” and will answer them no matter what they look like to you? Of course no questions with personal attacks, just asking about what is happening and we are *wondering*. What you think, Roy?

Sadly, he doesn’t appear to value truth more than he values the entertainment value of finding conspiracy theories and smearing good people and organisations in the community.

As Jim pointed, words seems to be louder than deeds right now, so we have this situation.

He can fix that behaviour if he chooses to do the right thing.

Again, a point of personal interpretation. You can think on a way about the right thing, Roy on other, me on other. They are connected on some way, but don’t need to be exactly the same.

That’s a reasonable answer when commenting on Microsoft or Novell, but not when making nasty insinuations about members and organisations of the FLOSS community, who are easily accessible.

People on Microsoft and Novell could be easily accessible too, but see, there are human beings involved on both sides. We can and must not face all the people on “the other side” as demons (maybe the companies, but not the people) as we must not face everybody on the FLOSS side as angels also. Humans are more complicated than code, we have politics. And power. And, oh boy, money. So, it’s important to ask questions on both sides, even if sometimes there are not proofs or evidences, but we need some speculation.
My personal opinion about miguel, for example, is that he loves Microsoft things more than a normal person on the FLOSS side. And that’s weird.

It is not up to me to “prove” that kind of ill-informed, evidence-free insinuation wrong to prove my/our innocence, it is up to Roy to prove guilt. He hasn’t done so, and can’t (because the truth is not on his side).

I still think that it’s very complicated to him to prove that without deep investigation which can lead him to some complicated fields and places. Not a matter of the side of truth, maybe, but resources and time available.
See, I’m not insinuating that you’re lying, Jeff, but I can’t just trust you’re right because *you* just tell me that you right. As Jim pointed, you can not say that such a situation is true and that your word should be taken above other, specially when things are moving fast and huge right now about the matters discussed here.

@TaQ: If it just were so. I had a hard time using a proxy in order to get this message through. Roy censors-out any comments that don’t agree with his view. This casts a bad light on his love for freedom IMHO.

The only reason Roy doesn’t censor out Roy is that this would certainly not look good for him. But anyone else, he gladly censors.

Roy, this one is to you: Most people DO NOT agree with you. Stop inducing hatred into a community where people should respect each other.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Oh, yes there is. Shame that you can’t read it, my friend!

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Jeff, why the “right questions” should be deal on a more secret scope than the public exposure this website have?

I made it pretty clear in my comment that I’d let him publish them. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to expect people to answer serious questions about serious issues in the comments section of a website. This is not the right way to go about research.

I am wasting my time here trying to get Roy to stop being divisive and irresponsible in his reporting and do the right thing by the FLOSS community. I’ve said on many, many occasions that I’m happy to answer questions about the issues, and I even created an opportunity for him to do so in the form of an interview.

Sadly, he doesn’t appear to value truth more than he values the entertainment value of finding conspiracy theories and smearing good people and organisations in the community. He can fix that behaviour if he chooses to do the right thing.

If Roy could make some of the deep research that eventually could prove some of his points, he’d need to walk with some security dudes or hide somewhere on Earth. It’s not that easy have some proofs on some deals that a lot of people with power and money are involved, but this can’t make us stop searching for the truth even without the real facts.

That’s a reasonable answer when commenting on Microsoft or Novell, but not when making nasty insinuations about members and organisations of the FLOSS community, who are easily accessible. Making nasty insinuations about your friends in the FLOSS community without asking what’s going on is just disrespectful and lazy.

If there’s something wrong, Jeff, prove him that he’s wrong, but without personal persuasion.

That is completely backwards. Roy has insinuated that GNOME Foundation direcctors, my company, my wife and I may have had some kind of financial incentive from Microsoft or Novell to make the decisions we’ve made.

It is not up to me to “prove” that kind of ill-informed, evidence-free insinuation wrong to prove my/our innocence, it is up to Roy to prove guilt. He hasn’t done so, and can’t (because the truth is not on his side).

What he’s doing here is lazy, irresponsible, disrespectful, and not helpful to the cause he wishes to contribute to (FLOSS) and some day he’ll look back on it with shame.

Jim, I encourage you to contact me or the Foundation Board to answer your questions. It’s really not useful to do this kind of stuff in the comments section of a blog.

Jim, *please*, if you ask him the questions and publish the answers, let us know where they are. I don’t agree with Jeff when he says that the right thing to do is to comment the questions on private emails and publish the answers out of a website where he keeps posting his comments on such a way that, as you pointed, seems to works more as personal persuasion to Roy than showing us some facts that prove that Roy is wrong. This matter is kind of public now, and should be deal with transparency.

Jeff, why the “right questions” should be deal on a more secret scope than the public exposure this website have? As Jim pointed, here is not the only place were people are talking about this, but if some of the Jim comments were answered here, it can make a reference to point on another websites.

As seems that we don’t have any kind of censorship here as we could have on some other websites that perhaps are connected to companies not interested on make some critics about Microsoft and some other huge players, I think it’s a good place to answer that. I understand that it’s not a place you like Jeff, but as we (you included) keep commenting here this make this place a good place to make the Jim questions clear. And if Roy works like a censor to the your comments, I’ll be the first to complain.

And, man, what a lot of “do your primary research and ask questions” thing, uh? If you search Google for “primary research ask questions roy” we’re on first place.

If Roy could make some of the deep research that eventually could prove some of his points, he’d need to walk with some security dudes or hide somewhere on Earth. It’s not that easy have some proofs on some deals that a lot of people with power and money are involved, but this can’t make us stop searching for the truth even without the real facts. If there’s something wrong, Jeff, prove him that he’s wrong, but without personal persuasion. As your point needs some more, let’s say, “positive” facts, you’ll not need to be on a delicate position as Roy if he proves some of the “negatives” facts.

One parts which I disagree with (among more) is “both communities have — in their own way — played a role in this erosion of trust.” Very tactless.

You’re welcome to disagree with it. It does not give you the right or any evidence to suggest any kind of lack of integrity on the part of people or organisations as a result of your disagreement — which you have done on this website, irresponsibly and without cause.

We think it’s an extremely important point to be made, and it is actually something you would do very well to think deeply about. It’s not just Microsoft who are using standards as an industrial weapon, and shrill voices from both sides of the debate have had a negative impact on the standardisation process and trust in it.

We may not like Microsoft, share philosophies or market goals, but that doesn’t make them solely responsible for the problem here. Happy to disagree on this point, but again, it is not cause for demonisation or conspiracy theories.

Maybe not actively, but your actions are helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML.

No Roy, my personal actions, and those of the GNOME Foundation are not helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation of OOXML. I’m happy to agree to disagree about perceptions, of which there are valid points to be made, but there’s a lot of grey area in there, and very little black and white.

Our participation in ECMA TC45-M has, on the whole, from my perspective, *helped* the case against ISO standardisation of OOXML. I’m totally comfortable that people disagree with that.

But again, it does not deliver them the right or any evidence to demonise individuals or organisations such as the GNOME Foundation.

You’re going to have to start thinking pretty hard about what your case against us is, and what evidence you have for it, Roy.

What you need to point out to me is what specifically about that statement you disagree with, and why you believe it provides you evidence or rationale to suggest that we are “supporting Microsoft” or do not have Software Freedom as our priority. Go for it.

By the phrase “supporting Microsoft”, which is a phrase I haven’t used here, I never meant (and you know this by the way) that someone is ‘in cahoots’. What I meant to say that either sympathy or tactlessness led to this decision. One parts which I disagree with (among more) is “both communities have — in their own way — played a role in this erosion of trust.” Very tactless. This reminds me of Brian Jones’ latest claim that “Rob Weir wants war”.

We’re not helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML,

Yes, you do. Maybe not actively, but your actions are helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML. See Jim’s comment which he posted a couple of hours ago. Maybe I should echo that message so that you decide to reply to it here (it’s challenging, I know).

Yes, I can. And to me, the whole paragraph sounds – just as to others for that matter — like Microsoft propaganda. It’s exactly the type of statement used by Microsoft to have a proprietary format seen as needed. Don’t ask me. Ask others who have read that.

No Roy, you made the statement. You are responsible for it. You’re welcome to disagree with our analysis of the situation, but you’re not welcome to demonise us or suggest we’re “Microsoft stooges” for having our own perspective.

What you need to point out to me is what specifically about that statement you disagree with, and why you believe it provides you evidence or rationale to suggest that we are “supporting Microsoft” or do not have Software Freedom as our priority. Go for it.

Various people on the mailing list have requested change of course, in deed or in words. [...] There would have been no tensions if you waited rather than helped Microsoft’s pursuits for ISO.

We’re not helping Microsoft’s pursuit of ISO standardisation for OOXML, and we have not done anything wrong. I’m absolutely willing to agree to disagree about the perception issues, but our intent is 100% positive for Software Freedom, in line with our long-term commitment and desires for working on GNOME at all.

So, justify your attacks and insinuations. You’re not doing anything positive for Software Freedom here, Roy.

What you ought to be doing is asking questions and researching the issues before making claims, assumptions and insinuations, but based on your behaviour and responses, it’s unlikely that you’re going to start doing that any time soon.

Seriously, can you read?

Yes, I can. And to me, the whole paragraph sounds – just as to others for that matter — like Microsoft propaganda. It’s exactly the type of statement used by Microsoft to have a proprietary format seen as needed. Don’t ask me. Ask others who have read that.

What do you actually expect to achieve here…

Various people on the mailing list have requested change of course, in deed or in words.

Electing the GNOME Foundation board

“There are clear tensions between some of the project’s leaders. Criticism of the project’s participation in the OOXML standardization process seems unlikely to let up anytime soon.”

There would have been no tensions if you waited rather than helped Microsoft’s pursuits for ISO.

Here’s some simple questions, I ask that you answer them since I am sure that you are reading this:

GNOME cannot endorse OOXML, yes? So GNOME opposes it? I have read over and over the GNOME statement on its participation in TCM45-M participation and exactly what role GNOME is playing in all of this.

Case 1: OOXML does not get approved

So OOXML does not become a standard. Now, through the hard work of GNOME members you are able to extract a lot of information about the OOXML format, then what? Seems like a waste of time to me, you now have some details about a format that you cannot implement without significant legal implications. Now you seemed to be proud that via GNOME’s participation in the process may have gotten a “no” from Australia, I’m happy to hear that, but it only confuses me more (more on this later).

Case 2: OOXML gets approved.

Now, of course I’m hoping that approval occurs under the fairest of terms for everybody: free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-discriminatory license protection on everything involved in implementing the standard. Under this circumstance at least GNOME’s involvement in the process makes sense, yes? But then one is kind of left to conclude that GNOME wants OOXML to get approval. Seriously, is seems like a logical conclusion.

So, my confusion (‘m sure shared by MANY MANY people): there is a general consensus that OOXML should be rejected because of two things:

a) the distasteful baggage of history associated with this emerging fiasco and the fact that the standard, by most accounts, is a very bad one. Also, nobody seriously believes that Microsoft will stick with an “open” standard that they cannot unilaterally diverge from.

b) the logical conclusion that one would draw from GNOME’s participation is to get a good, well documented standard with adequate protections that gets approved so that implementations of that standard within the FLOSS world can proceed without fear of reprisals. But of course, there is that lingering tenancy for Microsoft to “go its own way”. Nobody can stop them. What then?

Seriously, please stop fighting with Roy for a minute and clarify some basic points. It is the gap between points a and b above that is fueling all the “conspiracy theories”. You may think that all of this has been made clear already, believe me, it hasn’t. It really, really, really seems like GNOME is put itself into a bad position here (in other places I’ve seen this called a mistake), because it seems like you have to want OOXML approved, but many of “us” simply cannot see how rewarding Microsoft’s behavior with a standard for OOXML (one the pursued only because ODF got there first and ODF is threatening their stranglehold on document file formats) is the “right” thing to do, but if you fight against OOXML’s approval you won’t be able to act on the information you got about the format during the standardization process, unless… and this is where the really scary conspiracy theories take over, GNOME has been co-opted by Microsoft through, lets say Novell, but pick [something] that makes some plausible sense, as a “vector” to inject a patent encumbered format into the FLOSS world. I don’t want to be a nutter and think that the FLOSS project blesses by the FSF primarily because of the “not completely free” Qt license of old has been, even remotely, turned into a force for Microsoft. Please provide evidence that this is true.

You may not think that Roy is asking questions but *I* am. Please take some time out to answer them, Above else clarity is needed and GNOME’s actions remain unclear, at least to me.

What do you call that then?

I call that a quote from our statement, which shows our concern with the unfortunate impact on the standards process from both sides of the divide. It says absolutely nothing about a desire for two standards, or endorsement or support for OOXML. Seriously, can you read?

you guys are helping Microsoft for all I can see, by acknowledging that playing catch-up with a moving target is acceptable.

It’s not acceptable, but right now it’s inevitable. It doesn’t matter if OOXML becomes an ISO standard, we’ll still be implementing their formats so that users have the ability to choose FLOSS products. That doesn’t mean we like OOXML or our position in any of the reverse engineering efforts we’ve been lumped with over the years.

Roy, you’re still pursuing this as if we’ve done something wrong, and as if you are going to expose some great conspiracy behind it all. The problem is, we haven’t, and you won’t. So you should pull your head in, do some research and ask some questions for a change, and do the right thing.

You’re tilting and windmills and not doing anything positive for the FLOSS community in the process. What do you actually expect to achieve here, other than attempting to defame community contributors and organisations?

The GNOME Foundation didn’t favour the use or highlight the importance of multiple standards by any stretch of the imagination. Don’t be fatuous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112601753.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139920-c,opensource/article.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/11/26/GNOME-Foundation-defends-OOXML-involvement_1.html

“The [GNOME Foundation] group also argues that neither OOXML nor ODF will serve all needs, and that the development of standards overall could be in jeopardy: “We are deeply concerned that abuse of the standards process is eroding public trust in the value and independence of international standards. Both ODF and OOXML are very heavily influenced by their implementation heritage, neither are likely to deliver the “one true office format,” and both communities have — in their own way — played a role in this erosion of trust.”

What do you call that then?

This is hilarious. OOXML is not “immoral”.

You have conveniently ignored the following sentence which presents Microsoft’s explicit admission that it’s only a matter of money. I suggest you read some literature on fair competition and consider the issue of data preservation, which is among the customer’s best interests. People do not use Microsoft’s formats because they are good; they often do these because they haven’t a choice. Read Andy’s in-progress eBook on how Microsoft eliminated competition in office suites. Microsoft’s OOXML is a case of ensuring there will never be competition and you guys are helping Microsoft for all I can see, by acknowledging that playing catch-up with a moving target is acceptable.

but the matter of fact is that your stance on OOXML has helped Microsoft elbow its competition to the sidelines.

Actually, while I was sitting in a Standards Australia technical committee meeting on Monday, GNOME’s participation in ECMA TC45-M was actually a helpful experience in our efforts to change Australia’s “abstain” to a “no”.

See, Roy, you just don’t have the depth of experience, knowledge or commitment to the FLOSS community to question my integrity. You don’t even have sufficient skills to research what I do to understand the context in which these things happen. That’s why your reporting is so irresponsible.

You’ve accused me of lying and then actually contradicted yourself by acknowledging the truth what you claimed was a lie. “Has little influence or impact” is not the same as none at all.

This is a silly little semantic game you’re playing because you haven’t done any primary research about the issue, and you’re more interested in making insinuations, reporting conspiracy theories and smearing personalities and organisations than seeking the truth. If you were seeking the truth, you’d ask questions!

So, let’s make this absolutely clear, so you can’t keep using weasel words and insinuations to propagate this ridiculous conspiracy theory:

Miguel has been the titular president of the GNOME Foundation since it was founded, and regardless of his on-and-off status as an elected director of the Foundation, never performed the role of ‘leader’ (either as chairman or active president) of the GNOME Foundation. Moreover, all of his responsibilities as titular president were performed by the chairman throughout the lifetime of the GNOME Foundation as a result of conventions adopted when it was founded. This is the issue we sought to fix a couple of months ago by more actively pursuing Miguel’s resignation (as per the bylaws, the position of president can only be resigned by letter). Additionally, neither Miguel or Novell were involved at any time in the decision to participate in ECMA TC45-M, as very clearly noted in the GNOME Foundation statement.

Note: I want to make it absolutely clear that the information I provide here is not new, and is a result of your irresponsible reporting, not a result of fair and reasonable questions on your part.

You have never had any basis for the continued repetition of this insinuation on your website, particularly where GNOME is not at all relevant to the story. This merely makes clear what is already well known, and what you could have found by responsible research or contact with the relevant people.

If there was no element of truth in this, then I do not believe you would try hard to end these discussions or restrict them.

I am absolutely comfortable knowing that I can’t end or restrict these discussions, or the way you choose to report issues on your website.

What I have tried to do is bring the light of truth and knowledge to your objectionable insinuations, and suggest that you might consider a different approach, one that is more productive, more informative, and more responsible to your readers and the FLOSS community.

There is a combination of observations that we mentioned in this Web site before. They include: [...]

I defended Jody’s position because he has the right to his opinion, and he is significantly more informed about these issues than many. I don’t have to share his opinion to defend it, a subtlety you don’t seem to be able to cope with.

The GNOME Foundation didn’t favour the use or highlight the importance of multiple standards by any stretch of the imagination. Don’t be fatuous.

You keep raising questions about the integrity of me, my fellow GNOME Foundation board members, and have on a number of occasions now, brought my wife’s integrity into question. If you’d done any research about me, my wife, my company or the people on the GNOME Foundation board, you would realise that there is absolutely no question whatsoever over our integrity or commitment to FLOSS. You link to sites and make convenient assumptions and insinuations without engaging any kind of primary research or critical thinking, and that is simply irresponsible.

Go and do some research. Go and ask some questions. Go and do the right thing, Roy. You might find that the world is not as black-and-white as it seems (or, perhaps, as you want it to be).

And finally:

ODF is moral, OOXML is immoral.

This is hilarious. OOXML is not “immoral”. It’s a document format specification created by a company that doesn’t share our philosophy or commercial interests, who are using standardisation as a weapon in the marketplace. That’s all.

Just because we don’t like it, just because it is a competitive risk to our products and Software Freedom, doesn’t make it immoral.

You’re not going to make any useful contribution to FLOSS or even the debate about OOXML if you take this kind of black-and-white, extremist attitude.

Meanwhile, I’m actually doing something about that competitive threat, on multiple fronts… and you’re just screaming and frothing at the mouth in an ill-informed echo chamber.

Let’s have a good long think about integrity now.