[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Level of detail needed in a TC Charter
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/6/13 <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>: >> >> >> I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. The definition given ("the >> anticipated audience or users of the work") is what OASIS gives us. We have >> no ability to change that. I'm suggesting an interpretation that seems >> obvious enough to me. > > > Which paints a picture of a real nice dictatorship. I agree. In response to my point of order and objection, Rob bobbed and weaved but justified his failure to rule on it by saying that there is no chairman and no meeting, in effect that this is a free-for-all. But Rob is certainly behaving as though he is in charge and is making decisions for the group right and left. .Rob can't have it both ways. If he is in charge, then his only legitimate function is as chairman with the OASIS instruction that Robert Rules or Order apply. If he is not in charge, he has no right or power to make these decisions by himself. It's just an 800-pound gorilla flexing his muscles to get what he wants for his company. > While there it may be politic to see if Michael is right about this quote > > ... Simply speaking, the best way to achieve interoperability between ODF > applications is that these application implement as many of ODF as > possible and reasonable for the specific application, and with as little > bugs as possible...." Dave, it might help to understand some history here. Michael Brauer is the guy who controlled the ODF TC as the only chairman from 2002 until last fall, when he proposed that a co-chair position be created and Rob be elected as a co-chair. Brauer is the guy who made ODF the interop mess it is today. The Sun members of the TC always voted in block to achieve Sun's desired outcome, which invariably was to make sure that their apps stayed dominant in the market by breaking interop. Brauer has been blocking interop initiatives on the TC since 2002. When he says that implementing the full specification is the best way to achieve interop, he's making a very tired excuse for not addressing interop on the ODF TC. The ODF spec is so underspecified that it is impossible for anyone to implement an interoperable application that is not a clone of the OOo code base, and Sun is the only company on the planet with the rights to do whatever it wants with the OOo code base, because of the code contributors' joint copyright assignment. Sun gets unfettered ownership rights to do whatever it wants with contributed code, but all other contributors get only joint ownership of their own contributions and a LGPL license for the rest. Trying to get interop provisions into the ODF 1.2 spec was like tilting at windmills. Nobody on the TC is willing to even entertain the subject of fixing the standard so less featureful and more featureful implementations can round-trip documents. But so long as ODF can't enable that, ODF is a big vendor-only show. There are at least two ways round-tripping between less and more featureful implementations can be implemented. But both depend on the existence of an interoperability framework that has been missing from ODF from day one. The interop framework for ODF is the UNO application componentry framework in OOo and StarOffice. But Sun did not contribute its specs to the TC when it offered its XML specs as the foundation for ODF. And Sun hid the hard-coded programming decisions necessary to achieve interop in the ODF specification in a sea of "may" and "should" clauses and passive voice sentences that impose no requirements at all. You might ask yourself how one is to program "may" and "should?" Those are very unBoolean operators. Rob is throwing his weight around to get a blank check to do whatever the big vendors want on the new TC. But I think 40 years of failure is long enough to declare big vendor control of file formats a failed experiment. There are power issues that need to be settled before this TC is ever formed. Writing the Charter before even determining market requirements is an exercise in obfuscation. Rob's "gotta-git-it-done-in-90-days" excuse is no better. A new formation group can be established if the formation work isn't done in 90 days. And I think it's far more important that the Charter remove the exclusive control of the big vendors than it is that the Charter be written quickly. I think it relevant that there is nothing in the draft charter so far about *achieving* interoperability nor any work-plan to do so. What Rob is drafting is a blank check for yet more big vendor abuse of standards. We can as a group take as long as is necessary to draft a competent charter that gives the big vendors their marching orders. Given that Rob has now said that he is not in charge, I think folks should call B.S. every time he acts like he is in charge. In my point of order objection thread, Rob said: "This is not a meeting, there is no agenda, there is no chairman. This is a discussion list, and with 129 subscribers, it is going to be messy. " <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00273.html>. Rob has disclaimed all power and authority to decide what this group of people does. When he says what we can and cannot do, he's just in 800-pound-gorilla mode. behaves as though he has that power in order to discard what he doesn't want, he's ducking rather than addressing the issues. My suggestion is that an appropriate response when Rob pulls that act is to just go ahead and add your item to the web page. It means that Rob can't come up with any better reason for opposing your item than to act like he's the one who gets to decide. Best regards, Paul -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]