Please Vote No to OOXML / Information on Our Delegation

[John Myshrall]

Christopher Browne wrote:
> 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;
>   
It's all over the media.  BRM will not cover discussion over the 
comments that were made. 

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2007121304552774

North Americans don't seem to care about this stuff though.
> 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.
>   
As long as they meet their mandate and mission.

http://www.scc.ca/en/about/governance/mission.shtml

http://www.scc.ca/en/about/governance/mandate.shtml

> 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...
>   
Who's saying that ? Doing nothing achieves nothing too.

> 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.
>   
Those question were direct from the FFII.

Read here http://www.scc.ca/en/about/index.shtml

If they allow individuals from X company to promote their agenda
then they contradict this statement.

Thanks but no thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20071213/930afb47/attachment.html>