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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

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

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] PROPOSAL -- Name change for proposed TC

The following are selected out takes of Paul's email to Craig:
>marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/20/2008 03:40:50 PM:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Craig A. Eddy <tyche@cox.net> wrote:

> I did not expound on your affiliations. I asked questions about them.
> And as to abilities, my only criticism was the ignorance displayed by
> the person person with legal training who drafted the content of your
> post....

In other words, Paul is calling Craig a lier, because Paul can tell from a few words when someone must be lying.  Craig states that he wrote the post himself; Paul says that he did not.


>This list has been inundated by people lacking any familiarity with the factual and legal issues involved...

Paul, as you know, legal issues have been declared unwelcome and out of scope.  Yet you continue to expound on them on a daily basis.  Questions for the day:  

-  If all governments "down through all levels" are legally required to adopt certain standards, just why is it that so few of them do?

-  If the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade says what you say it does, why is it that it is never enforced in that way?

-  If standard setting is so rife with civil and criminal risks, why is there _not a single individual_ in jail for a criminal violation? Nor have I ever seen a single case of an individual, as compared to a company, being fined for a standards-related antitrust violation?

-  Where are the hundreds of cases a year involving standards violations, as compared to the five or six per year that are actually filed globallyl?

-  Why, therefore, does this pre-standards discussion group have to continue to wallow in so much inapposite and inaccurate legalese?

>I do not accept your statement that you wrote your
> post yourself without the assistance of a person with legal training
> unless you disclose that you have had such experience.

Again, Paul has become like The Shadow, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.  Unless you satisfy Paul's demands and requirements, you stand convicted by your own words.  And yet, per a recent post, Paul can't be bothered spending the time to substantiate his own allegations, despite the obvious fact that he is allocating a significant amount of time sending endless, repetitive emails to this list?


> Fine with me. I'm not here looking for love.  I'm here to clean up an
> interop mess.

I note that no one else seems to believe that there is such a horrible ODF "interop mess" or that if there is, it was caused by those that you are convinced have caused it.

Rob, do we have to put up with this much longer?

Paul, I await your response to my suggestion regarding W3C.  For those that may not have been following that thread, I add it in below.  If you're not sure about how to go about asking the question yourself, I'd be happy to call Steve Bratt (in my personal capacity, and not in any way on behalf of OASIS) over at W3C and have him put me in touch with the right person:

"Paul, it occurs to me that there is an easy way out of this impasse [Craig stated that CDRF did not seem relevant to our efforts] that should get you where you want to go.  The best way to credential your vision for the new TC would be to have the Chair of the CDRF Working Group, or a W3C staff person,  post a message of support here that tells us (a) that they endorse your goal, (b) that they think the results you hope for are technically feasible, and (c) that they are committed to following a course of action that will ensure that any efforts on our part would be fruitful.  These points seem like only basic good sense.

They also make good sense from a going forward basis.  When standards groups work together, they establish liaison relationships with each other, to ensure that they coordinate with each other to maximum mutual benefit.  Commonly, a busy consortium will have about 40 such relationships.  So to do something meaning full with CDRF, it would make very good sense to have such a relationship with W3C.

I'd suggest that you secure such an endorsement from W3C, and that until then, we discontinue all further discussion of CDRF.  We are all very familiar with your frequently articulated arguments, so the endorsement is the next logical step.  When you arrange for that we can then speedily move forward with a more informed decision."

Best regards,

Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.  (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)

Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878.  This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee.  It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at  (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.  Please expunge this communication without making any copies.  Thank you for your cooperation.

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