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


I am well aware of the personal abuse of Florian and I was one of the 
people who suggested the process of proposals to try to end that abuse 
and move onto a more productive discussion. Unfortunately, that process 
did not result in a long enough period of cooling off to result in a 

However, I don't think impugning the motives of others is an appropriate 
response where you see abuse of others occurring. It is the most natural 
of reactions but ultimately a non-productive one. As is the notion of 
"outside pressure."

But, you did ask how we could move forward with a consensus.

First, yes, I do think reversible mappings between ODF and OOXML are 
very important. I told an EU panel at the eGovernment meeting in Berlin 
on March 1st of this year that before either OOXML or ODF 1.2 became ISO 
standards that EU members should insist on mappings to the "other" 
formats with test suites with which to demonstrate the mapping. That was 
mostly because I don't think we understand the respective formats well 
enough to produce a unification version in the short term. It also has 
the effect of forcing both "sides" to learn the others format. It is one 
thing to cherry pick parts that you don't like out of a proposal, but it 
is quite another to understand it as a whole.

Second, realize that standards, particularly when they have been 
ambiguous in some prior version, are never free to simply write with a 
free hand. If I seriously thought about it I am sure I could come up 
with several items in ODF 1.0 that I would do differently today than we 
did them in ODF 1.0. Not better, simply differently. I would like to 
think I have learned somethings since we did ODF 1.0. But, since we did 
things a particular way in ODF 1.0, unless there are extremely 
compelling reasons, we should not invalidate implementations written 
under that standard for the sake of a "better" model, even if it is a 
"better" model.

Third, remember that at the level of abstraction with which I view 
markup, that simple mappings that rely upon a "list" in ODF having the 
same or similar element structure as a "list" in OOXML, is only one 
option for mapping. Another option for mapping is to use metadata, for 
instance, to record whatever mapping information that is required. To no 
small degree I think this dispute has arisen due to an overly 
literalistic reading of markup structures as being meaningful. They are, 
but only to a degree. I could represent everything that OOXML does with 
<body> and <seg> as my only elements, assuming I was allowed an 
appropriate (large) number of attributes. No one would actually do that 
but I point that out simply to make the point that yes, we do need to 
have good markup structures, but let's don't fixate on them.

Fourth, I think we need to consider what "consensus" means. If Florian's 
proposal was adopted, I assume that the TC members who supported the 
other proposal would vote no. Assuming enough votes to pass Florian's 
proposal, is that a consensus? I think not.

So, we have a situation where different members of the TC are going to 
vote no to either of the two extant proposals. Note that abusive posts 
(on or off list) nor "outside pressure" are not going to change those 

What are our options?

1. We simply have no corrective proposal for lists and they remain as in 
ODF 1.0/1.1, which I think everyone agrees is not a good solution.

2. We maintain adoption of the current proposal, which does resolve the 
ambiguity of ODF 1.0/1.1, but there is no 100% consensus on it.

3. We adopt Florian's proposal, which also resolves the ambiguity of ODF 
1.0./1.1, but there is no 100% consensus on it.

At some point the TC must resolve this issue. That is to say that 
allowing any side to simply refuse to move forward because there is no 
"consensus," holds the TC hostage to any member deciding its my way or 
the highway.

I thought that getting the proposals in more specific form would assist 
in moving the proposers together. I was overly optimistic in that regard.

We have an enormous editorial task ahead of us already so it isn't like 
we are going to push ODF 1.2 (or whatever the marketeers decide) out the 
door next week.

So, I would like to propose a forth option:

4. That anyone who is interested re-examine the adopted proposal and 
Florian's proposal with the following guidelines in mind:

a. Any proposal must work with the following implementations as they 
exist: OpenOffice, KOffice (others for the list?)

b. Consider what would be required to map any of the proposals to OOXML. 
Since most implementations offer save-as features, this is useful in any 
event. Noting that we don't specify a mapping as part of the standard.

c. Remember that any markup proposal is simply one way to express a 

d. Consider the use of the metadata proposal for mapping purposes.

e. Remember that I and probably others will *not* read posts that are 
long diatribes on any vendor, speculation on motives, alliances, 
conspiracies, etc. That is just so much noise in my view.

f. Remember that compromise is part of the committee process. I have had 
to compromise to use what I thought were less robust solutions in markup 
committees simply because a majority of the committee was satisfied with 
the proffered solution. That happens. It is not the end of the world. 
Standards are not static documents. If your position doesn't prevail 
this time, perhaps experience will show that your solution should be 
adopted next time.

g. The committee has lots of other business to do so let's not have this 
as an agenda item unless and until a proposal that bridges the 
differences in the two existing proposals has gotten consensus among the 
principals interested in them.

I really do think a 100% consensus is possible but if and only if the 
proponents of the various proposals will step back and actually try to 
work with each other.

Finally, yes, every move or suggestion has consequences and my 
suggestion in fact leaves the currrently adopted position of the TC in 
place. I don't know what other option exists if we are to ever move 
forward on this and other issues. At some point everyone has been heard 
and a majority of the TC has spoken. Yes, it is much better to have 100% 
consensus (and as I said, I would like to see that) but the TC cannot be 
hostage to any single member or small group of members deciding that no 
issue is decided until they argree.

I think if we dial back the rhetoric a bit, which everyone wants to 
respond to rather than addressing the actual technical issues, then we 
can in fact reach 100% consensus. Well, with the caveat that sometimes 
compromise is necessary to reach 100% consensus. There is no shame in 
compromise. The alternative is to be very righteous and in a broom 
closet with your closest supporters.

Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!

marbux wrote:

> On 5/5/07, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:
>> Greetings!
>> I would like to ask on the list that Michael *not* reply to this posting
>> or any similar postings to the office list.
>> When the rhetoric reaches this level, meaningful discussion simply isn't
>> possible.
>> Note to any non-TC members reading this post: This is not indicative of
>> the usual level of discussion in this TC nor should be taken as a
>> reflection on the excellent technical work done in the past, present and
>> future by this TC.
>> Hope everyone is having a great weekend otherwise!
>> Patrick
> Patrick, I have nothing but respect for you. You are an incredible and
> unusually consistent voice of reason.
> That said, in this instance I note that you offer no suggestion for
> resolving the dispute and your advice has the practical effect of
> endorsing Michael's "let's move on without revisiting the list issue"
> rejection of consensus decision-making that has just occurred for the
> first time on this TC. If you are siding with Michael on this TC's
> first-ever abandonment of its commitment to consensus decision-making,
> then you and I are on opposite sides of an issue that will resonate
> for the entire future of this TC. If you are not siding with Michael
> on abandoning the consensus principle, please offer a more
> constructive suggestion than ending the conversation.
> I am certainly willing to negotiate or to mediate but I am unwilling
> to drop discussion of my use cases, the abandonment of the
> unjustifiable consensus process, and the effects on competition.
> Please also understand that ending the discussion also leaves me
> without an ability to affect the decision except by bringing external
> pressure, as I've have said since I first raised my objection to
> moving on without resolving the dissenting ballot by the OpenDocument
> Foundation.
> The "move on without resolving the dissenting ballot" folks remind me
> of JTC-1's handling of all those contradictions by national bodies.
> Even before the Directive change allowing it, JTC-1 decided to move
> ahead with fast track processing of the Ecma 376 draft standard
> without resolving the contradictions. But abandoning consensus
> procedures is only evil if it's for Microsoft's benefit rather than
> Sun, yes? Or do you oppose the abandonment of consensus, which entails
> continuing the discussion of the lists proposal (and my issues). Whose
> side are you landing on in regard to the consensus issue, Patrick, and
> how do you reconcile that position with your request that people not
> respond to my posts? I very sincerely would like to know.
> I will close by noting my disagreement with your characterization of
> my post as "not indicative of the usual level of discussion in this
> TC. While I agree that much good work has been done on this TC and
> active members are normally fairly civil, I have watched throughout
> the lengthy  discussion of the list proposals the incredible abuse and
> personal insults heaped on Florian Reuter. I've even received rather
> incredible private emails from one of the protagonists of the
> Sun/KOffice position before the vote saying far worse about Florian,
> insulting his expertise. I do not engage in ad hominem attacks and I
> expect others to do the same. But I have no problems with discussing
> behavior, whether it is my own or others'. There is a huge difference
> between personal attacks and objections to behavior, which as a former
> attorney like myself, you undoubtedly know.
> Best regards,
> Marbux
>> marbux wrote:
>> > On 5/4/07, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
>> > <Michael.Brauer@sun.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Marbux,
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, should that trust of our TC colleagues extend to the reps of
>> > companies who secretly complain to OASIS about the OpenDocument
>> > Foundation having too many participants on the TC? Or to TC colleagues
>> > who use their position as TC chairman to ensure that no new features
>> > get added to the ODF specification that their company isn't willing to
>> > support? Or to TC colleagues willing to break their competitors' app
>> > by ramming their proposal through without consensus, despite this TC
>> > never before having done so before?  Or to TC colleagues so hell-bent
>> > on breaking interoperability with the software -- used (by various
>> > estimates) by between 72 and 90 per cent of the office productivity
>> > software users on this planet -l- that they're willing to leave their
>> > potential customers with no choice but to violate the law if they
>> > adopt their software?
>> >
>> > Of course I should unwaverlingly trust everyone on the TC, with my
>> > very life if need be. You are absolutely right, Michael. I'm the only
>> > one on this TC who has been playing hardball. Everyone else is acting
>> > purely in the spirit of collegiality. I am so sorry that I even
>> > suspected Sun might be concerned about MS Office acquiring the ability
>> > to read and write ODF natively. Please forgive me for suspecting that
>> > your company has a vested interest in remaining the dominant supplier
>> > of ODF-based software and that your company's vote on the list
>> > proposal that breaks Microsoft Office interoperability with ODF might
>> > have been tainted by the slightest bit of self-interest. Thank you for
>> > the rebuke. I deserved it and you've caused me to realize that there
>> > isn't a software company on this planet that would attempt to subvert
>> > the standardization process to gain a competitive advantage. Suddenly,
>> > the paranoia that has clouded my judgment throughout my legal career
>> > and my retirement has lifted. Now I realize that all of those poor
>> > corporate folk I sued in my life were totally innocent of any ill
>> > motive whatsoever. How can I possibly atone for all those punitive
>> > damage awards that I obtained with what in retrospect was entirely
>> > spurious evidence that I slipped past a host of judges? I am so
>> > grateful that you have awoken me from my detached sense of reality.
>> > How can I possibly repay you for your invaluable lesson on proper
>> > manners.  Hey, how about we start a Manners Subcommittee with you as
>> > the chairman? You have such a gift for teaching this subject! I'd be
>> > glad to help in any way I can, maybe doing testimonials for you great
>> > your moral leadership has been.
>> >
>> > Not.
>> >
>> >> 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 x--snip--x
>> >
>> >
>> > Wrong as a matter of logic and common sense. Thomas's decision to
>> > break interoperability with MS Office, while implemented through
>> > technical means, was a non-technical value judgment. You've made
>> > repeated statements that I have quoted back to you where you made it
>> > clear that you saw compatibility issues as a trade-off with other
>> > technical issues. Such tradeoffs are value judgments, not technical in
>> > nature. Are you now suggesting  otherwise or just being careless with
>> > your choice of words?
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >>
>> > How about the fact that this TC has never before moved on when there
>> > was a single dissenting vote? What is your justification for departing
>> > from that historical practice now? Is consensus now a principle this
>> > TC will abandon so long as the injured party has less clout in the
>> > OASIS power structure? Did I miss the vote on changing that practice?
>> >
>> > In a day and age when the public is beginning to realize that they
>> > have a stake in what standardization bodies do, the exclusive cartel
>> > of very large companies that dominate OASIS -- assiduously eschewing
>> > self interest in the same way OPEC members regulate the price of oil
>> > worldwide -- have recently acted to restrict OASIS participation
>> > through changes in the membership rules rather than embracing more
>> > public participation. Your company is one of them. Your company --
>> > which is actually comprised of real human beings like you rather than
>> > the legal fiction of a corporate entity -- used the change in the
>> > membership rules for non-profits to clamp down on the OpenDocument
>> > Foundation to restrict its participation in this and other TCs. The
>> > human beings in your company did that without advising the Foundation
>> > that your company was the one who registered the complaint with OASIS.
>> > In the judicial system, talking to the judge outside the other side's
>> > presence is very dirty pool, excusable only when there is a compelling
>> > reason for doing so. It's a violation of disciplinary rules in every
>> > state and court in the U.S., for both lawyers and judges.
>> >
>> > By your company's sneak attack, you challenged the future
>> > participation of many people on this TC who participate through the
>> > Foundation's auspices. That includes active TC members such as myself,
>> > Thomas, Patrick, and Bruce. As it happens in the present circumstance,
>> > the Foundation is the *only* voting member that has facilitated public
>> > participation on this TC and made it possible for developers who draw
>> > no financial gain from their applications to participate. But of
>> > course your company has been glad to profit from our volunteer
>> > contributions. But no more, if you have your way with your OASIS
>> > complaint.
>> >
>> > Now that this TC has departed from consensus decision-making, I guess
>> > Sun is completing its power grab on the TC and eliminating the threat
>> > of Microsoft Office becoming a competitor that supports ODF natively
>> > via the Foundation's plugin. To heck with Gary and Sam Hiser's many
>> > years of volunteer work on OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument. It's
>> > obviously more important that they be stopped from enabling full
>> > fidelity interoperability with MS Office. Let there be no doubt that
>> > OpenDocument is Sun Microsystem's file format and no one else can say
>> > no unless they can find enough votes to constitute a majority. And
>> > those TC members who don't have a vote? Ignore them. They're ants.
>> >
>> > Talk to me about your company's real agenda,  Michael, before you ask
>> > me to trust you.
>> >
>> > What is it about your role in that sneak attack that should have
>> > earned my trust, Michael? Did you check with your lawyers about
>> > antitrust issues before that complaint was made? Your company does
>> > have a monopoly position in the market for ODF apps, after all. And
>> > gee, now your company has just rammed through the TC an amendment that
>> > just happens to break the application that has the potential to break
>> > your company's monopoly position in ODF apps by turning Microsoft
>> > Office into an ODF application.
>> >
>> > At all relevant times, of course, an organization called the European
>> > Committee for Interoperable Systems has been prosecuting an antitrust
>> > complaint against Microsoft in no small part because of its refusal to
>> > support OpenDocument. Gee, I wonder what companies interests are being
>> > represented by ECIS?
>> >
>> > Oh, right, here it is: "ECIS' members include large and smaller
>> > information and communications technology hardware and software
>> > providers Adobe Systems, Corel, IBM, Linspire, Nokia, Opera, Oracle,
>> > RealNetworks, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems."
>> > <http://www.e-c-i-s.org/about/membership.html>. Oh, my. Both IBM and
>> > Sun voted for the proposal that broke the Foundation's plugin that was
>> > going to add full-fidelity native ODF file support to Microsoft
>> > Office. So it's sounding to me like at least two of the TC members who
>> > voted for the Sun/KOffice proposal didn't check in with the ECIS
>> > lawyer before they broke interoperability with Microsoft Office.
>> >
>> > Do you think Microsoft won't use this evidence in the DG Competition
>> > antitrust proceeding, Michael? Let's see, you guys are prosecuting
>> > Microsoft for not supporting ODF in Microsoft Office while you block
>> > Microsoft Office from supporting ODF. Yeah, I think DG Competition is
>> > going to hear about this one from Microsoft. They'll probably hear
>> > about what you said about compatibility being a trade off too. Oh,
>> > yeah. Microsoft's lawyers are going to love this. Look at the ECIS
>> > public statement about interoperability's importance. Just click the
>> > "Interoperability" tab on their web site's navigation bar:
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >
>> >      Interoperability is a cornerstone of the ICT industry. In today's
>> > networked ICT environments, devices do not function purely on their
>> > own, but must interact with other programs and devices. A device that
>> > cannot interoperate with the other products with which consumers
>> > expect it to interoperate is essentially worthless. It is
>> > interoperability that drives competition on the merits and innovation.
>> > The ability of different computer products to interoperate allows
>> > consumers to choose among them. Because consumers can choose among
>> > them, interoperable products must compete with one another, and it is
>> > this competition that has driven innovation in the software industry.
>> >
>> > <<<
>> >
>> > If I were writing Microsoft's next major brief to DG Competition,
>> > based on what I know now, I think I'd lead by contrasting what you
>> > have done and said with what ECIS has said about the importance of
>> > interoperability and its effects on competition. You just allowed
>> > Microsoft do argue that that DG Competition complaint about Microsoft
>> > not supporting ODF is spurious because Sun and IBM are simultaneously
>> > breaking interoperability with Microsoft Office. Which keeps Sun its
>> > monopoly interest in the OpenDocument application market. I can
>> > imagine Microsoft's lawyers argument now: "It would have been futile
>> > for Microsoft to implement ODF natively because IBM and Sun would have
>> > manipulated the ODF specification to break interoperability with
>> > Microsoft Office anyway. They don't really want Microsoft to support
>> > ODF. Look at what IBM and Sun just did and said on the OASIS
>> > OpenDocument Technical Committee."
>> >
>> > And I wonder how your screw-up is going to affect relationships with
>> > the other member companies in ECIS? Gee, they are going to be really
>> > pleased with you, aren't they, Michael? They agreed to crawl out on
>> > that limb with Sun and let's see, who was the guy who sawed off that
>> > limb? Uh-oh ...
>> >
>> > And who was the guy who just handed the Foundation an antitrust claim
>> > for damages against Sun? Uh-oh.
>> >
>> > Better briskly scurry off to the Sun legal department, Michael. In my
>> > considered opinion, you just stuck your foot in it big time. Your name
>> > is all over this little maneuver. It's damage control time for Sun and
>> > your best shot at saving your job is to copy this entire thread for
>> > the lawyers, ask them to read it, and start preparing for hard
>> > questions and stern advice. This isn't your issue anymore. It's the
>> > legal department's. They're the ones who have to clean up your mess.
>> > And the longer you delay letting the lawyers know about what you've
>> > done and said, my guess is that the worse it will be for you within
>> > the Sun management circle.
>> >
>> > I resigned my Bar memberships when I retired and can't lawfully give
>> > legal advice any more. But I will give you this caution: don't start
>> > destroying emails in documents before you consult with the lawyers
>> > about doing so. It's a big no-no to destroy relevant evidence once
>> > you're on notice that a subject may wind up in litigation. It's
>> > something that standing by itself can create liability in many
>> > jurisdictions. It's called spoliation of evidence. Microsoft got in
>> > some really serious legal trouble fairly recently in the Burst v.
>> > Microsoft case for destroying corporate emails after it was on notice
>> > that the issues might wind up in litigation. Microsoft's lawyers now
>> > know about the law on this subject. And while you're preserving the
>> > internal emails, you might as well post copies to the list because
>> > Microsoft's lawyers are going to get them anyway. You might reduce the
>> > litigation expense by just coughing them up. But check with the Sun
>> > lawyers first.
>> >
>> > Oh, Michael. You are in such deep doo-doo that you probably won't
>> > enjoy the repercussions. Welcome to the land where lawyers play, as
>> > they say. :-)
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > Can you cite a relevant rule that says we must drop the issue or is
>> > this just the decree of King Michael?
>> >
>> > 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
>> >> discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> > And the rule that requires me to follow this guidance is where? I
>> > would consider it a courtesy if you would identify what aspect of the
>> > issue I have raised that has left you confused? If it is the law I've
>> > been citing applicable to interoperability in the use cases I've
>> > raised, you'll have to consult your own lawyer. I am no longer allowed
>> > to dispense legal advice and never was allowed to do so for
>> > non-clients. Were I to be cute, I'd point out that Thomas is now
>> > claiming that the interoperability issue with Microsoft Office was
>> > never raised before the vote. But I'm not in the mood for clowning
>> > around tonight.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What possible reason do you have for raising that issue other than
>> > implying that I'm somehow being underhanded by showing up using a
>> > "nym," as is common practice on the Internet? How is my real name
>> > relevant to the merits of what I have said? How do I know you are
>> > using your real name on this list? I would appreciate it if you would
>> > post JPGs of certified copies of *your* birth certificate and
>> > passport. Sheesh! Ask Simon Phipps who I am. He and his staff
>> > consulted with me on a couple of drafts of the CDDL before it was
>> > released and the relevant emails and telephone notes with my real name
>> > are undoubtedly stashed away in Sun's archives somewhere.
>> >
>> > Nonetheless, despite your innuendo and lack of respect for my privacy,
>> > I'll humor you somewhat and suggest another way for you to find out
>> > more about me. But please understand that I retired from public life
>> > when I retired from the practice of law. I had a degree of celebrity
>> > during my legal career, I am no longer a public person, and I don't
>> > make it easy for former clients and citizens with concerns in the
>> > subjects I dealt with before retiring to find me. That means I don't
>> > make a practice of leaving my real name on the Web where it is
>> > associated with any of my contact information.
>> >
>> > Those days are done. The major achievement of my retirement is no
>> > longer having to answer my telephone, which for far too many decades
>> > ruled far too much of my life and now sports an unlisted number. That
>> > said, my real identity and my pre-retirement background are no secret
>> > and many people on this TC know both. You can as well if you send me a
>> > private email and agree not to publish that information on the Web.
>> >
>> > As to my relevant affiliations, I am an uncompensated volunteer member
>> > of this TC, the OpenDocument Foundation, and the OpenDocument
>> > Fellowship. As nearly as I can recall, I have not been a member of any
>> > other formal organizations for at least four years. I do play a
>> > sparkplug and coordinator role for a FOSS project to develop software
>> > for the law office market in English-speaking countries, a project
>> > which has not yet been announced.
>> >
>> > I am surprised you did not know of my affiliations because I don't
>> > know anyone who has been a more active or public advocate for ODF for
>> > the last several years and I'm well acquainted with all of the major
>> > players in the ODF advocacy community. I am beholden only to myself,
>> > my family, my friends, and the human race. I live on a fixed
>> > retirement income and I receive no other remuneration from anyone. My
>> > full-time retirement "hobby" is championing the interests of software
>> > users generally in interoperability. I also do more occasional
>> > education and advocacy work around other issues affecting the FOSS
>> > community such as software patent law. On this TC, I represent the
>> > interests of no one but myself and the software user community at
>> > large. I fancy myself as one of many voices for the software user
>> > community and have considerable experience in that role.
>> >
>> > Most of my legal career was devoted to public interest environmental
>> > law involving toxic substances, mainly toilet training big corporate
>> > polluters by taking the profit out of pollution through lawsuits for
>> > money damages, representing victims of chemical poisoning. I am also
>> > the co-author of three major treatises in that area of the law. I'm
>> > the proud father of four children and the grandfather of two, so far.
>> >
>> > Prior to my legal career, I worked in the newspaper industry for some
>> > 20 years. During 27 months of military service in Viet Nam, I worked
>> > as the leader of a combat psychological warfare team. I consider
>> > myself an expert in effective, goal-oriented communications.
>> >
>> > Representative published examples of my ODF-related work are as 
>> follows:
>> >
>> > "The case for a valid contradiction of Microsoft Office Open XML at
>> > ISO has not been rebutted"
>> > <http://opendocument.xml.org/node/238>
>> >
>> > "EOOXML objections"
>> > <http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections> (I was co-primary
>> > editor and sparkplugged that project, as several on the TC who
>> > participated can attest. I also wrote the legal analysis sections of
>> > that document.)
>> >
>> > "The Great Massachusetts Legal Donnybrook"
>> > 
>> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050330133833843&query=donnybrook> 
>> >
>> > (My in-depth article that turned the ODF-Microsoft file format war 
>> into a
>> > burning public issue.)
>> >
>> > "The Microsoft Covenant Not to Sue - Sending a Mixed Message"
>> > 
>> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051129101457378&query=donnybrook#Contents> 
>> >
>> > (legal analysis of the Microsoft covenant not to sue relating to the
>> > Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas).
>> >
>> > If you want to know anything else about me, drop me an email.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Marbux
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -- 
>> Patrick Durusau
>> Patrick@Durusau.net
>> Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
>> Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
>> Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
>> Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!

Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! 

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