Please Vote No to OOXML / Information on Our Delegation

Christopher Browne cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Thu Dec 13 06:02:03 UTC 2007


On Dec 12, 2007 9:09 AM, John Myshrall <jmyshrall-6duGhz7i8susTnJN9+BGXg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Well I received the answer from the SCC this morning. It's late but then
> I'm only a citizen with no clout. As requested here are the answers.
> The answer to C is not very reassuring though.

It seems to me that it ought to be useful to ask questions about:

a) What, if anything, they intend to present to the BRM process;

b) What changes in the standard the Canadian representatives intend
either to support or to propose.

In the long run, the point of these bodies isn't to either support or
oppose Microsoft, it is to set up the standards that they are
empowered to set.

Engaging IN THAT seems like the right idea.

My father was involved in Ottawa with some of the municipal education
politics (until his sons were no longer in school in the region ;-)),
and I saw arguably similar sorts of things happen there.

Frequently, people who had some single-purpose platform of interest
might wander in every couple of years, raising "flak," but essentially
accomplishing nothing.

I recall one case where the school board had proposed bringing in some
common book of "prayer readings," at which point, a certain element in
some religious communities would turn out in force, just barely long
enough to show themselves off to be ignorant boors who were clearly
more interested in making noise than in actually preventing what they
claimed was bad.  Had those folk consistently participated in the
process over a period of time, with a degree of "shutting up until
they knew what they were up to," they might have grown to:
a) Know who might be amenable to listening to them;
b) By virtue of participating in *other* issues, they might earn a
modicum of respect;
c) They'd understand something of the political process, so that
they'd know, for instance, when it's useful to act (e.g. - early on),
and when things have reached a point where policies have "set" (like
epoxy!) to the point of being difficult or impossible to change.

There was, of course, no risk of such folk actually having any effect
on things, because they never engaged long enough with the political
process to be able to be effectual.

Those three factors seem like they're likely to be useful in this
political process, too.

It's probably on the late side to be feeling them out as to who they
are, and how they intend to represent Canadian interests, at least for
this phase, but those seem like great things to try to probe.

Merely saying "Microsoft Bad!" seems like the useless sort of
reactionary approach...

Expressing concern at the appearance that some corporate interests
seem to be trying to hijack the overall process does not seem
inappropriate.  And expressing *specific interests* in document format
seems like a real good approach.
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results."  -- assortedly attributed to Albert
Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list