RE: [office] The Phantom Proposals

[Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>]

Rob,

Since you've said below that my blog post is "100% factually accurate," I'll assume that the "factually incorrect representations being made about OASIS and the ODF TC's work" are coming from some other source, and there's no need for me to be involved in any discussion of them.

Yes, let's let the record below speak for itself, and get back to more pressing matters.

Regards,
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Doug Mahugh
Cc: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] The Phantom Proposals

Doug, I never said your blog post was inappropriate or inaccurate.  I said 
that I am hearing and reading that this TC voted down "Microsoft's 15 
interoperability proposals", and that "IBM and Sun" ganged up on Microsoft 
to do that.  One person in particular told me he got this information from 
you.  I am being generous and open minded here and taking the least 
cynical view possible in suggesting that your blog post may have been 
misinterpreted.    This is probably just a simple misunderstanding.  I'm 
happy to leave it at that.

I've clarified the record here today and made sure OASIS knows that there 
are some factually incorrect representations being made about OASIS and 
the ODF TC's work. 

Regards,

-Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Mahugh 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:34 PM
To: 'robert_weir@us.ibm.com'
Cc: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] The Phantom Proposals

Rob,

I'm having a hard time understanding how that blog post leads you to make these claim below that "statements are being made, and actions attributed to members of this which are false, misleading and reflect poorly on OASIS, this TC, our work and our decision making process."

For those who've not seen the blog post you're referring to, here's the link: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/13/tracked-changes.aspx  

The topic of the post is Tracked Changes, and it was written in response to questions from our customers about why we decided not to support tracked changes in our ODF implementation.  Here's the complete context of the excerpt you quoted below, which is in a Q&A section at the end of the blog post:

> Why didn't Microsoft work to get this fixed in the ODF TC?
> 
> We joined the OASIS ODF TC last June, and we started slowly because some people have stated concerns about
> Microsoft having too much influence on ODF's direction.  The first proposal we made was a very simple proposal
> to add two optional attributes to indicate maximum grid size for spreadsheet applications, which would have
> addressed a specific real-world interoperability problem we encountered with a major ODF implementation.
> Other TC members argued against this proposal, and after several such exchanges we decided not to push the matter.
> 
> We then continued submitting proposed solutions to specific interoperability issues, and by the time proposals
> for ODF 1.2 were cut off in December, we had submitted 15 proposals for consideration.  The TC voted on what to
> include in version 1.2, and none of the proposals we had submitted made it into ODF 1.2.
> 
> We look forward  to contributing more to the ODF TC in the future, and we would welcome the opportunity to work
> with other TC members to improve ODF's ability to handle tracked changes.

If the TC members or OASIS staff feel that that post is somehow inappropriate, I'm very interested in hearing about that.  For context and comparison, it may be useful to consider how the statements in that blog post regarding past activity in the ODF TC compare to the characterizations of TC member conduct and motives that have been shared by other TC members in recent blog posts:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html  
http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html  
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html  
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/08/should-we-waterboard-rob-weir-and-other-crucial-questions  
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html  

Regards,
Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Doug Mahugh
Cc: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae; office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office] The Phantom Proposals

Hi Doug, If you agree with the general outline of the events as I 
described them, you might want to revisit your blog entry of May 13th, 
where you write:

"We then continued submitting proposed solutions to specific 
interoperability issues, and by the time proposals for ODF 1.2 were cut 
off in December, we had submitted 15 proposals for consideration.  The TC 
voted on what to include in version 1.2, and none of the proposals we had 
submitted made it into ODF 1.2. "

What you wrote there is 100% factually accurate, I believe, but could very 
easily be misconstrued, especially since it fails to mention that the 
proposals were effectively voluntarily withdrawn prior to the vote.  I 
think that if that point is clarified, this would stop the 
misunderstanding from propagating further.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  I don't 
know.  Things like this develop a life of their own sometimes.

Thanks,

-Rob


Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/19/2009 04:52:51 PM:


> 
> Rob, I appreciate your eagerness to clarify the public record and 
> get the facts correct.
> 
> Can you please provide a link to whatever misrepresentation you are 
> trying to correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Doug
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: Carol Geyer; Mary McRae
> Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [office] The Phantom Proposals
> 
> Hi Carol and Mary (and FYI, for the ODF TC members, who all already know 

> this),
> 
> I'm starting to here a claim that the ODF TC rejected "15 proposals" 
made 
> by Microsoft to improve interoperability.  "IBM and Sun voted them down" 

> is how I hear it phrased.  Just in case you get any inquiries on this, I 

> would like to draw your attention to the TC's record, which does not 
> substantiate the claim. 
> 
> By last November, the ODF TC had completed the technical features it had 

> initially set out to do for ODF 1.2: metadata, accessibility, formula 
and 
> database.  We had completed our goals.  But we were still tracking 50 or 

> so miscellaneous member proposals on our wiki, and this number was 
> increasing.  You can see the list of proposals on the wiki here:
> 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/List_of_Proposals 
> 
> On November 24th, by decision of the TC, with no objections, we agreed 
to 
> limit the number of additional proposals we would consider for ODF 1.2. 
> You can see the agreement in the meeting minutes here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200811/msg00124.html 
> 
> On December 8th, again without objection, the TC agreed to have a vote 
on 
> which of the remaining member proposals would be considered for ODF 1.2.
> 
> This agreement is in the minutes here: 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00055.html 
> 
> You can see that step #4 in the minutes called for members to reiterate 
> their proposals if they wished to have them included in the ballot. 
> 
> The list of reiterated proposals is listed here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00089.html 
> 
> Michael sent a note to make sure that this list was not lacking any 
> proposal.  No errors in that list were reported.
> 
> We voted on the list and the results are here:
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200812/msg00156.html 
> 
> All eligible TC members voted.
> 
> So, although it may be cleverly stated that "None of Microsoft's 
> interoperability proposals were accepted" this is solely because the TC 
> members from Microsoft did not reiterate their proposals and in effect 
> withdrew them from consideration.  I remember the call distinctly, where 

> they said they did so because they did not want to slow down ODF 1.2.
> 
> I want to make sure that the record is crystal clear in this regard, 
since 
> statements are being made, and actions attributed to members of this TC, 

> which are false, misleading and reflect poorly on OASIS, this TC, our 
work 
> and our decision making process. I don't think any of us want to see 
that 
> happen.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>