Perhaps it is worthwhile to point out that there is fundamental difference between Open Document Foundation contributing with people to ODF standardization and Open Document Foundation recruiting people already participating in the ODF standardization. It is not like the originals goals of the Foundation are any weird.

Also it is always difficult to assert truth out of events that can not be experimentally repeated. We know that people who was members of Open Document Foundation took part of the development. Yet we can not know if others would have stepped in in their place if they had not been there.

If the ODF development comes to a stumbling halt with these three people gone we know they were vital, if everything proceed as usual it is an open question on how important their contribution was.

I must confess that I don’t know how to calibrate the Foundation as an umbrella for individuals participating on the OASIS TC versus as a development effort (with how many of those participants) to build a translator?

I suppose we’ll have to look elsewhere for serious experiments on what it means to have Universal Interoperability and what the caveats and limitations are with regard to “universal.”

Also, you claim that either the Foundation was wrong to pursue interoperability, or that OASIS must be afraid of it. Are those really are only choices? What about the possibility that the Foundation’s interoperability plan was oversold as providing 100% fidelity but in fact was technically flawed and did not in offer a reasonable chance of achieving interoperability? Can we be allowed that option as well?

But please keep on chasing “Universal Interoperability”, Sam. I’d like nothing more than to be proven wrong here. Honestly.

The repetition of this small number seems to reflect a fearful interest in minimizing the Foundation’s historical contribution. There were about 27 individuals at one time listed as participants in the OASIS ODF work under the OpenDocument Foundation’s sponsorship. Lists get old and names sometimes stay up longer than they should. Actually the maximum number of participants on the OASIS ODF TCs and sub-committees at one time never exceeded about 15. And the Formula and Metadata Sub-Committees were founded and chaired initially by Foundation members.

This blighting of the record should raise curious interest. Either the Foundation was wrong to pursue Universal Interoperability at the format level, or the absence of Universal Interoperability is a dangerous weakness that members of OASIS are afraid to look at … or fearful that outsiders should see.

It would be interesting to see if over time any of our Interoperability proposals have been introduced — behind the scenes — to the ODF spec in traces of recognizable form. That would be validating, indeed, of the concepts for which we fought hard & well.

So validating too is all this odd & continuing attention from the ODF Community even though the Foundation has turned in its hall-pass.

It should all raise good questions by anyone interested in what to do next in documents, formats & software choices at their organization.

Thanks, that caught my eye as well. The Foundation once was a member of OASIS, one voice among many, but OASIS in no way sponsored the Foundation. OASIS officially promotes ODF via the ODF Adoption TC and OpenDocment.xml.org.

@anonymous,

I have no reason to question the Foundation’s integrity. They appear to honestly believe what they say. The Foundation once had a larger membership, and supported ODF, but most of their membership quit in protest when the Foundation’s leadership turned against ODF.