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

[David Holden]

On Thursday 25 January 2007 1:43 pm, Dave Fisher wrote:

Hi Dave,

> 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).

Personally although I have done in the past I tend to feel pretty 
uncomfortable lobbying people in power/positions of influence unless I have a 
fair understanding or overview of the the technical details and can construct 
a (ok reasonably) well thought out if not entirely personal response. So I 
think my point about the short notification and this not being a great test 
case for the LUGs ability to mobilise around an issue is fair.

I better test case may be the LUGs response to the open source in education 
issue.

>
>   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.

Complexity is relative purely because I don't understand the issues on first 
glance is not a reason for me to start writing letters. Presently I'm not 
even sure of the ramifications of 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

I would suggest that the best place for a summary is the summary section.  The 
summary in this document uses language appropriate for a standards body 
(probably quite rightly) not for a lay person looking to get the gist.

Thanks however for highlighting appropriate section titles which do convey 
that gist.


Finally here's a smiley :)

   Dave.


-- 
Dr. David Holden.

See: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
regarding Word or PowerPoint. GPG key available on request.
-------------------------------------------------------------