RE: [odf-adoption] Which ODF are we talking about?

["Burg, HJM \(Harm Jan\) van \(INNOVATIE\)" <h.j.m.burg@minfin.nl>]

Erwin,

It seems I have stepped on some toes here.
Fact is that in current situation most government organisations
including tax admin use Microsoft office products whether we like it or
not. Government organisations have to work as efficient as possible.
Space there was in the past for departments to choose their own products
is vanishing fast. Governments have to be internally interoperable. They
also have to retain documents for long periods. 
A open document format that enables documents to be stored for a long
time is a big issue. In my country we now convert to XML but lose
mark-up in this way.

I am a strong believer in a document format that enables us to store,
exchange and retrieve documents independent from vendors applications
and useful over time.

The current ODF specification is not supported by Microsoft. This puts a
lot of companies including governments is a "have to wait" position or
"have to develop ourselves" position.

What we need is consensus in the market and to unite users to convince
developers in the direction of openness. I am totally on the user end of
the spectrum. I have seen the presentation of a SUN employee on behalf
of the ODF TC on the OASIS adoption forum in London a couple of months
back.
The message was clear: "users have to choose" Open office or Microsoft
office. My comment that by this positioning you do not help corporate
users but simply push them into implementation problems, did not ring
any bell. "I simply was not a believer yet"

This TC has the potential to lift itself above the battles and work on
the consensus or get sucked into one of the competing fractions. 
It might be clear where I stand. I am not willing to choose for a vendor
at this point I want to help, helping users where a document format sits
in the life line of their organisation.
As government employee I am willing to use buying power to help
achieving common goals. Standards should not be in the competitive
arena. They are there for enabling end users. Some governments feel so
strong about that that they join OASIS to help. That means that our work
in this TC could be very political. We have a opportunity here.

Harm Jan van Burg

Ps sorry for my English (not my native tongue)


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Erwin Tenhumberg [mailto:Erwin.Tenhumberg@Sun.COM] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 7 april 2006 15:42
Aan: Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van (INNOVATIE)
CC: odf-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org
Onderwerp: Re: [odf-adoption] Which ODF are we talking about?


Dear Harm Jan,

ODF is obviously to some degree a competitive play against competing
formats. As a consequence, there have been competitive statements by
employees from Sun, IBM, but also Microsoft. What exactly are your
concerns? What do you suggest?

See my additional comments inline!

> There is a current ODF. A standard greatly dominated by Sun to bash

What makes you think that the format is dominated by Sun beyond the fact
that its orgigins are in OpenOffice.org, a Sun-founded and Sun-sponsored
project?

> Microsoft. The TC is about adoption of the idea of a open document 
> format. In my mind this forces us to start working with big industry 
> players (including other OASIS members) to achieve a truly open 
> document format. To be exact: in my mind any format not supported by 
> the big players does not need an adoption TC because it will never be 
> widely adopted.

I completely agree with this statement! IBM is already a strong
supporter of ODF in addition to Sun. Novell and Intel are also
increasingly active on the technical side. Companies like Oracle,
Software AG, EDS, etc. are members of the ODF Alliance. Thus, what makes
you think that someone might not want to get the other big players
involved?

I'd love to win the other larger players as well!

> My personal support on behalf of a couple of big tax administrations 
> (not only the Netherlands) is in that context only. My government or 
> my tax administration is currently not supporting or using the present

> ODF nor does it have the intention to do so in the near future.

What exactly do you mean by the "present ODF"?

> Ps if this TC feels that ODF adoption has to mean: only promoting this

> ODF than -of course- I will not hinder the process of this TC and 
> leave.

What do you mean by supporting "this ODF"? Obviously, an ODF Adoption TC
will focus on promoting ODF, but the goal is to support the "evolving
ODF" with hopefully (!!!) increasing participation by small and large
companies and organizations.


Best regards,
Erwin