On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 19:00 +0200, Charles-H.Schulz wrote: > Folks, folks, folks. > > Sorry, don't take this as a rant, but let me bring you some news from > the outside. > OpenOffice.org has release OpenOffice.org 2.0
Yes I just publicised it and did some discussion follow up on UK.schools-it on Usnet. > Check the pages of the Marketing Project if you wish to know more about it. > > I would like to remind you that you're all in favor of FLOSS, of OOo, > and that you're trying (with some hassle, however) to evaluate how > effective signing the petition of the private consortium > OpendocumentFellowship could be in letting Microsoft know that you want > to use the OpenDocument format. Charles, why do you keep referring to the OpenDocumentfellowship as a "private" consortium? Its a public consortium in the sense that anyone can join as an advocate and members are in general members of the wider community that have something to offer as determined by their peers. Do you refer to other community projects in this way? Many members of the OpenOffice.org community are members of OpenDocumentFellowship but also there are members of the KOffice community, archiving people, OSC and people who are unaffiliated to any project. There is some overlap between promoting ODF and marketing OOo so I think for those people who are both members of the OOo marketing project and ODF members, a discussion of an ODF initiative is perfectly legitimate on the marketing list as would be a similar discussion relevant to say Firefox and OOo. > Your discussion, although interesting from a theoretical point of view, I'd have said its interesting from a practical point of view. The petition has already generated publicity for ODF and for OpenOffice.org. It might or might not be successful in helping get MS to adopt ODF but if you don't make an effort you don't get anywhere. ODF is not interested in theoretical discussion, we are interested in practical activities that promote ODF as the standard for all players. As an independent group that is not specifically a subset of any other project or company we are in a rather good position to do that independently. > is hence more suited to lists such as [email protected] . It would be relevant to social if it has gone off topic to such an extent that it is no longer relevant to publicising the products. It might be verging on doing so but I'd say its still mostly on topic. > What's more, your constant chatter is hindering the work of the > Marketing Project. In what way? You can always just ignore the thread or filter it. If people take part in it its because they believe its important. If they don't the thread will die anyway. The only recent thread drawing similar interest is "Its hard to beat office king" I would have said that was a much more worthy candidate to go to social. Apart from that the list has been quite quiet so I don't see where all the hindering is happening. Regards, -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
