OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] List Proposal Vote Deadline on Wednesday


this is the discussion list of the OASIS OpenDocument TC. We should
treat ourselves with respect on this mailing list and should trust
our TC colleagues. We further should abstain from putting pressure on 
other TC members and should be careful with accusations.

As for list: We have discussed this topic for a very long time, and
anyone had the chance to bring up her or his arguments and opinions. But
at some stage, we had to make a decision. I strongly believe that all TC
members have casted their vote solely based on their technical
understanding of the matter, and have considered all material that was
available to them. Since we had two concurring proposals, it was further
clear that only one can get the majority of votes. We should accept that
result, and should move on now, caring about the other topics we have
for ODF 1.2. There still is a lot of work in front of us.

Having that said: It at any time may happen that a TC revisits a
proposal after it has been agreed if it gets aware of technical issues
that have not been found before the vote. For lists, nothing technical
has been said after the ballot closed. Everything technical that has
been posted could have been considered by the TC members than casting
their vote, so everyone had a chance to make up her or his own mind
whether the proposals contain technical issues or not. I therefore think
there is no justification to continue this discussion unless new
technical details or arguments are brought up. By technical arguments I
mean arguments that precisely and technically describe an issue, based
on the text of the specification, and backed by examples or similar
material that helps to understand the issue. Without such a precise
description of an issue, I fear we won't come to any conclusion in a

One last note: I assume "Marbux" is not your real name. I would 
appreciate it if TC members show up in the TC with their real name, and 
also reveal their affiliation.

Best regards

Michael Brauer

OpenDocument TC chair

marbux wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 May 2007 23:15:26 marbux wrote:
>> > On 5/2/07, Thomas Zander <zander@kde.org> wrote:
>> > > Its the other way around; WW has a 2 key model, with this vote ODF
>> > > has a 3 key model.  So its simple to emulate a 2 key model in a 3
>> > > keys one by ignoring one key.
>> >
>> > Am I wrong that it isn't all one way? The Foundation is working on a
>> > plugin for Microsoft Office and so is Sun, as I understand the
>> > situation. Won't they have to somehow implement a 3-key model in a
>> > 2-day model in their plugins, given that they can't rewrite MS Word's
>> > page layout engine?
>> Sorry, marbux, you are not making any sense.
>> If there are features in ODF that MS does not have, how do you think the
>> ODF TC should behave?
>> Since that is exactly what you are asking here, you are asking for us to
>> not add features that WW can't handle as that might mean that docs
>> created in OOo etc can't be coverted to WW.
> No, I am asking for a commitment to determine if the problem in fact
> exists as Gary says and to fix the problem if it does, before ODF 1.2
> is released from the TC. If the problem is as simple as you suggest,
> then it sounds like we need a formally declared ODF interoperability
> subset or some such solution that apps can use to interoperate with
> Microsoft's applications.
>> And how you (have been) react(ing) speaks volumes, I lost a big chunk of
>> my respect for you today.
> I'm not going to respond in kind; I'll just say that I'm deeply
> disappointed that you are unwilling to even discuss making that
> commitment. I'm having trouble accepting that the only folks who are
> even trying to achieve full fidelity conversions are saying the vote
> broke their application and **no one** so far is willing even to
> discuss whether they will commit to fixing what is broken if their
> problem is real.
>> > > Now; I'm afraid I won't go into details on the rest of your mail.  I
>> > > said that as far as I know there is no such problem as you state
>> > > there is, and there are quite some people on this list that share my
>> > > feelings. In fact; even Florian never stated clearly that he thinks
>> > > its impossible to have full interop with the now ok-ed proposal.
>> > >
>> > > I understand you have worries, and I fully agree that full interop is
>> > > important. I'm surprised you do not know this since we have been
>> > > talking for a long time now.
>> >
>> > I thought I knew that, which is why I was surprised you would press a
>> > vote on the issue without knowing whether it would create an
>> > interoperability barrier with MS Office.
>> Corrections;
>> 1) I never pushed for a vote.
>> 2) I am very certain there is no interoperability barrier; I just
>> suggested we suspend the talking and let me do some work we can actually
>> judge.
> You are back-pedaling, Thomas. You were crystal clear before that you
> did not know whether the problem was real. Now to avoid even
> discussing that commitment I asked for, you are dodging instead of
> responding to my request by saying you are "very certain there is no
> interoperability barrier." When I begin contacting the press, I assume
> I may fairly characterize your position on whether you would commit to
> removing the interoperability barrier if Gary is proved right as a
> refusal to respond to the question. Is that incorrect?
>> > Please help me here, Thomas. In particular, I need to know whether
>> > this barrier -- if it proves to be a barrier -- will be fixed before
>> > ODF 1.2 is released for a  ballot by the OASIS membership.
>> With just about everyone technical on this TC telling you there is no
>> problem, I am surprised, naj, disappointed you are still pushing.
> Just about everyone but the developers who say the vote broke their
> application. Michael Brauer was clear that Sun isn't interested in end
> users being provided with the means to achieve full fidelity
> conversions. Both IBM and Sun are on record as saying it's time to
> move on without addressing the issue. Apparently not a soul on the TC
> is willing to discuss the full fidelity conversion use cases I've
> raised. And you are unwilling even to discuss whether you would commit
> to fixing the problem if the list amendments to the specification did
> in fact break the Foundation's plug-in.
> I'm sorry that I have disappointed you by taking the position that
> it's unacceptable to leave this issue on the shelf as you request, but
> I have a lot of experience with negotiating agreements and I'm not
> hearing anything from you but a refusal to negotiate even a commitment
> to fixing the problem if it proves to be real despite your stated
> recognition that you do not know whether the problem is real. I also
> have a lot of experience with issues that get shelved in negotiations
> staying on the shelf until it's too late to do anything about them and
> all of that experience is telling me if I don't get a commitment to
> fix the problem now, what I'll hear when and if the problem is
> confirmed is that folks are too far down their implementation paths to
> turn back at that point. Go read Michael Brauer's last post; Sun is
> not enamored of full fidelity file conversions with MS Office formats.
> If the problem proves to be real after you do your research, do you
> seriously believe Sun will then agreeto scrap weeks or months of its
> development work just so the Foundation can deliver a product with
> conversion fidelity superior to Sun's own MS Office plug-in? Michael
> has already said full fidelity isn't in Sun's list of requirements for
> ODF 1.2.
>> > As I explained, I'm dead in the water on my ODF advocacy work until
>> > this issue is resolved and I am unwilling to accept an open-ended
>> > postponement of its resolution, particularly in the absence of a
>> > commitment to fix the problem if it turns out there is a barrier.
>> Your choice.
>> I choose to spent my spare time on things other then to take away your
>> unfounded paranoia.
> Let's see. You've said interoperability is important to you. You've
> also said you don't know whether the Sun/KOffice proposal will break
> interoperability. Sun and IBM are shrugging their shoulders and urging
> us onward to the ODF 1.2 release without addressing the issue of
> whether the proposal broke the Foundation's plug-in and full fidelity
> interop with MS Office. (Never mind the irony that they've initiated
> DG Competition proceedings in Europe via ECIS alleging in part that
> Microsoft violated antitrust laws by refusing to implement ODF in MS
> Office. A cynic -- and some of the European media and in DG
> Competition -- might suspect that their expressed desire to have ODF
> fully implemented in MS Office is less than a sincere litigation
> position.) No one on the TC is thus far even willing to discuss the
> full fidelity use cases. Sun and IBM have big financial incentives for
> avoiding ODF being implemented in MS Office without data lossiness,
> the sales figures for their competing office products. And you've gone
> from not knowing whether there's an interoperability barrier to being
> "very certain" that there isn't plus you've refused to discuss whether
> the problem should be fixed if it turns out that the interop barrier
> is real. And the manipulation of standardization bodies to give
> particular vendors unfair advantages is so pervasive that we even have
> international treaties to regulate such misconduct that are being
> uniformly ignored across the entire software industry worldwide.
> But you say I'm suffering from "unfounded paranoia" because I won't
> agree to sit here twiddling my thumbs and just trust the TC to do the
> right thing someday. Well you've at least put your finger on what's
> bothering me. I do not trust the TC to do the right thing in the
> present situation. That is precisely why I have asked for reassurances
> and have extended the courtesy of a warning that I intend to publicize
> the situation if I don't get those reassurances.
> You might consider how much development time you stand to lose if I'm
> left with no remedy but to publicize these issues. A little time spent
> on negotiating these issues now might just save you a lot of time down
> the line.
> Best regards,
> Marbux

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]