[Wylug-discuss] 'Pathetic' FLOSS Advocacy - Put it to the test?

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Dave,

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:40:51AM +0000, David Holden wrote:
> May I suggest that pointing people to a complex 15 section document, asking 
> them to coming with a well thought out personal response to the issues raised 
> by friday would hardly constitutes a good hypothesis test case.

Please feel free.

May I also assume the same right to suggest an alternative
interpretation?

I don't think that I did ask people to produce a 'well thought out
personal response to the issues raised by friday'.  At least, not if you
take "the issues" to mean *all* or even *most* of them.

  1. It wasn't me, but Phil Driscoll, who posted the link to this page:
     http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

  2. My response to Phil's post specifically encouraged potential
     posters to avoid getting distracted by all the technical detail,
     and focus on the lobbying priorities (pressing the BSI to
     reject fast tracking).  
     
  3. If merely glancing at the Groklaw page persuades anyone that the
     proposal raises issues which are simply too complex to allow it to
     be passed through 'on the nod', I'd say that advances the argument
     for not fast tracking.

  4. If you do glance at the page, you'll find that it provides a
     relatively succint summary of important issues in it's contents
     list, e.g.

     7 Ecma 376 contradicts numerous international standards
     8 Ecma 376 is immature and inconsistent
     9 Ecma 376 uses bitmasks, inhibiting extensibility and use of
       standard XML tools
     10 Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed information
     ************************************************************
     11 Ecma 376 cannot be adequately evaluated within the 30-day
        evaluation period
     ************************************************************
     12 Ecma 376 cannot be reasonably implemented by other vendors
     
Dave