Erosion of trust [LWN.net]

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 10:53 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Erosion of trust by jdub
Parent article: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Unfortunately, the community are helping them abuse the process by making OOXML a political issue -- which actually helps Microsoft, because they can say all disagreement with OOXML is "political" in nature. Instead, we should be aiming to defeat OOXML purely on technical grounds (and repudiate Microsoft's actions in the process), in line with the standards process.

There's nothing political about rejecting a standard proposal that is unimplementable except by reference to code that is a trade secret. It's that way for an obvious reason: to help enforce a monopoly. Is helping to enforce a monopoly "political"? Is pointing that out "political"?

You're being played. Get advice from sound strategic thinkers before it is too late. Follow it even if that means admitting you did wrong. Follow it especially if that means admitting you did wrong.

(Log in to post comments)

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 10:59 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

<blockquote>There's nothing political about rejecting a standard proposal that is
unimplementable except by reference to code that is a trade secret.</blockquote>

That's absolutely right, and this is one of the very effective *technical* criticism we're
using around the world to defeat OOXML. That is not a political criticism under the terms of
ISO, so it's not relevant to what I'm talking about.

<blockquote>You're being played. Get advice from sound strategic thinkers before it is too
late. Follow it even if that means admitting you did wrong. Follow it especially if that means
admitting you did wrong.</blockquote>

I think you misunderstand the situation.

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:06 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

Could you give some specific examples of how it helps for you to be the representetive of the
GNOME foundation "on the inside"?

I think all the posts in this discussion have been over-generelizing ;-)

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:18 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

Well, an easy start is that Jody has pursued our goal: He's worked hard to make sure Microsoft
document as much of the standard as he could get them to during the ECMA process. This will
help FLOSS products implement OOXML, so users can move to FLOSS without sacrificing their
documents or cutting off compatibility with their friends and colleagues. It has also helped
improve the implementation of the binary formats to a certain extent, owing to their
similarity with the XML dump of the format (OOXML). ;-) This is like being given the
opportunity to grill Microsoft about the CIFS protocol.

Secondly, Jody's work has increased the size of the OOXML specification, which has helped
cement a useful technical argument against OOXML as an ISO standard -- one that is
particularly relevant in Australia (where I live), because we're a small country, and 80% of
our companies are small businesses for whom understanding or implementing the OOXML spec is
hideously out of reach.

So there are some good outcomes that are obviously based on our objective for being there, but
there are also some amusing benefits that we didn't expect. ;-)

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:53 UTC (Mon) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

How much is Microsoft actually commited to follow the changes in the OOXML standard? IIRC
there has been actually some statements of Microsoft seniors of the reverse.

If that is the case, interoperability with ISO-OOXML does not imply interoperability with
MS-Office 2007 (or later).

Erosion of trust

Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:16 UTC (Mon) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

How much is Microsoft actually commited to follow the changes in the OOXML standard? IIRC there has been actually some statements of Microsoft seniors of the reverse.

Yeah, they've already revealed some weaselly intentions on that front. I'm not too worried about that, we've fought a much tougher interoperability battle with them over the binary formats, but this time we'll be better prepared.

It will also be damaging for them to not be standards compliant (with their own standard!) from a government perspective, so we as a community can hold their feet to the fire there as well.

Note that I'm not suggesting that our participation in TC45-M solves everything, it's just another front in a much larger battle... of which the ultimate goal is Software Freedom!