On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:37:27PM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 7:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this > > > instance. It can not force developers towards or away from either > > > spec. That is simply not in it's mandate. > > > > I may be being obtuse, but what's not in it's mandate for ODF but is for > > OOXML? Or am I reading your words wrong? > > Yes, you are. :) He means that we can't force anyone to do anything. > In the OOXML case, someone came to the board and volunteered, and the > board helped out. There was no mandate there. Similarly, if someone > came and volunteered to work on ODF, the board would (presumably) seek > to join the relevant standards bodies so that that volunteer could > participate. But we can't force anyone to go do that work for us.
Thanks. > > > We all appear to agree > > > that implementing ODF is good for FLOSS. However, beyond that > > > there's no stick, and a carrot (eg funding) seems inappropriate (why > > > this project vs the dozens of others). > > > > Or one another in particular? For a fake standard, there is funding? > > What funding? No one is paying Jody to do what he does on OOXML; > again, he is a volunteer, doing things voluntarily. If someone were to > volunteer for ODF, the board would facilitate it. But the board isn't > going to pay anyone to work on either standard. Thanks. -- Or is it? Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list