Please Vote No to OOXML / Information on Our Delegation

[Christopher Aitken]

Forgive the top-post. I wouldn't know what questions to insert where in 
an interleaved response. When advocacy emails like these are on the list 
it would be nice if someone would explain in easy terms what's going on 
and what's at stake. I actually do spend a bit of time reading the 
emails and some of the links, but I find the information too technical 
and too much. I need an explanation like, "This is what so-and-so is 
trying to ram through. If it goes through then linux will basically be 
illegal to use for Internet access" or "If this goes through Microsoft 
will come after regular Canadian consumers and sue them for having .ogg 
files on there computers (even stuff you are just backing up from 
records and CDs that you own" and "It's a long shot but here is what 
people are doing to make themselves heard".

I know this is asking a lot, but I'd really appreciate some explanation.

Chris

John Myshrall wrote:
> 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.

--
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