On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >>> >>> Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is >>> critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally >>> established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the >>> 'independent' part is important. >> >> Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and >> beyond the control of any interested party - transparency is the key, just >> like it is at Apache. Any organisation can be gamed - it's a function of >> having rules, since "every system of rules contains within it the game that >> plays it and ultimately subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF >> is able to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop. > > Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even > a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded > to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure > that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless > claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip > that in the bud.
I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
