I got dragged into the OOXML debate only in October this year, prior to which I had avoided it in the comfortable (and incorrect) knowledge that it was being taken care of in Australia by people far more in the know than me. While in NZ I was chatting to the folk there who have lobbied hard and resulted in a “no with comments” vote for NZ and I realised I could have a positive impact in getting the debate on track in Australia. After all, Australia abstained from the last vote and we have one last chance come February to make a stand.
The main problem I’ve found as I’ve waded into the dark and murky waters of this topic is that the moment you try to take a logical even-handed approach, you are basically demonised by one or both sides of the debate. If you don’t take the emphatic “OOXML is evil and btw ODF is pure shining light!” approach, then random people in the FOSS community start to question your motives and credibility, which I can tell you, gets old pretty quickly. Particularly after both Jeff and I have spent so many years committed to the progress of FOSS and software freedom both locally and internationally. People don’t seem to understanding that taking an extreme stance puts you squarely on one side of the fence and makes it harder for the people actually making this decision to take what you have to say seriously.
It is like people in the FOSS community saying to Government “you are not using FOSS everywhere already, so you must be getting paid off, there must be a conspiracy! You are all bastards!”, and then wondering some people in Government have reservations about FOSS. Luckily there are a lot of very smart people in Government (in Australia) who are already using, writing policy about, and understanding that a good knowledge of FOSS helps them make more educated decisions about their ICT procurement generally. Which actually helps them choose FOSS where it makes sense, in spite of the loud offensive voices in the community.
Anyway, I am running an OOXML technical feasibility event on Friday in which I have experts from New Zealand and Australia speaking, as well as a variety of industry and community perspectives. The idea of this event is to understand whether OOXML is actually technically feasible (and there is a legal event in the afternoon for the same purpose). I believe that if OOXML is not technically feasible (which many people in the FOSS community take for granted) then it is a simple, practical and non-political reason to have a no vote for Australia.
I just found this blog post which also reflects the frustration felt by many people trying to understand what is going on without all the political wailing on both sides of the fence:
So, what I have gleaned from my researches (though that is probably too strong a word) so far is that while there are some valid discussions to be had, the majority of participants are either staunchly pro-ODF, or they are working for Microsoft. I do know that, were I an end-user, I would remain ignorant – but given the mud flying around, perhaps ignorance is bliss.
I will probably need to keep my mudproof raincoat on for a little while yet.
You may need to find a flame-proof coat as well, Pia …
I would wear knee high boots also so when you step in the poo it won’t stick and squelch between the toes whilst splashing over those around you
Hi! I think what I would like to understand is why do we need a second standard when there is already one? Can’t Microsoft spend its money to “improve” it to support feature XYZ instead of doing whatever they are doing now? But that would probably mean that the whole world CAN agree on something and that’s probably utopia (and has nothing to do with FOSS & MS – I just happen to be a dreamer)…
Hi Fred,
I totally agree with you that Microsoft really should be focusing on improving and harmonising with ODF, which is a true industry collaboration, rather than doing their own thing (again). However this is not a concrete reason to say yes or no to OOXML, which is the question I’m currently focused on. Mainly because that is the sole question our standards bodies are struggling to answer.
Hope that makes sense 🙂 All the rhetoric in the world is fine, but we need to understand the difference between an OOXML/ODF debate, for which there are many _many_ points, and a ‘should OOXML be an ISO standard’ debate.
Hey think of it this way because most of us can relate. If the group with the number 1 haircuts, steel capped boots and an angry snarl tell you that you must adopt their gobal standard of Oi music many will becuase they are afraid to think on their own, then their will be those who twist the Oi back to reggae who will do their own thing and adopt their own standard.(anything in this world can be a standard if you say so). Foss may be a group of skins but that doesn’t mean everybody has to get inline or be beaten and kicked into submission.
“the majority of participants are either staunchly pro-ODF”
I don’t think this is the case, certainly it was not in New Zealand. What we were was staunchly pro-open standards, pro the need for a credible international standards body and very pro having workable standards that are a useful addition to our technological framework *first* and a marketing tool 21st.
Good luck tomorrow.
@Don
I agree with everything you said 🙂 I don’t believe the majority of participants are staunchly pro-ODF, but I do believe there are a few very loud stanch pro-ODF participants (as there are a few loud staunch pro-OOXML participants) who muddy the waters and make it quite hard to be neutral as one or both parties tend to throw mud.
I think the argument for strong Open Standards and a credible international standards body is very important.
What Don is saying is actually the case within the national standards
bodies like Malaysia and Singapore also. Most of the people on these
bodies are purely technical standards people who debated on various
other less public ISO standards. Unfortunately the decisions of these
technical committees have been overturned by heavy politicking such that
a government minister overrules the recomendations of technical
committees of standards bodies in our countries (Malaysia and
Singapore). I think you can find access to the unbiased comments of
these technical committees such as the British one available online.
With neutral comments, do you actually mean pro-OOXML?
The technical committees debated on whether it is fit to be an ISO
standard, based on standard procedures, not in comparison to ODF. Where
ODF is mentioned, it’s because part of the procedure is to compare with
existing ISO standards of which ODF is one. The fact that a lot of these
technical recommendations were negative, does not mean it’s pro-ODF,
more the fact that OOXML is not fit to be an open standard to be adopted
by ISO according to our national standards body technical committees.
You’re lucky you live in more transparent country. When national
standards body recommendations are vetoed and overruled by a minister,
I hope you can understand why some of us in the FOSS Community in
Malaysia, may not be so sympathetic for a call for a fair go for OOXML.