Archives for 2009

U.S. Postage Stamps of 1959: A View from 50 Years Later

2009/12/30 By Rob 6 Comments

What We Commemorate

Commemorative stamps memorialize recently-deceased presidents, mark important anniversaries, acknowledge national institutions, boast of engineering, scientific and artistic achievements and celebrate victory in war and in peace. Historically, U.S. stamps have portrayed the country as we like to imagine it is, or was.

If history is written by the victors, then that portion of history represented on our stamps is written by the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC). As we look at the commemorative issues of 1959, we might ask three questions:

What is the ostensible subject of the stamp, the real historical event?
What was notable about the subject matter in 1959? What recommended this for commemoration? How did the ethos of 1959 color the portrayal of the subject?
How is the subject viewed today? Is it of enduring interest? For example, was it widely celebrated in 2009?

The Lincoln Sesquicentennial

The sesquicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln in 1959 was celebrated by a redesign of the Lincoln Cent (retiring the “wheat back” and introducing the “Lincoln Memorial” reverse) and with a series of four commemorative stamps. The first stamp (actually issued in 1958) marked the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I covered that stamp last year with the other 1958 stamp issues.

The Final Report of the Lincoln Sesquicentennial Commission gives many details of these stamps and the ceremony around their release:

The second stamp in the Lincoln Commemorative series was of 1-cent denomination and the first-day issuance was held at Hodgenville, Ky., on February 12, 1959. Hodgenville was chosen as the site since it is the nearest post office to Lincoln’s birthplace. A commemorative event had already taken place here when on December 27, 1958, Commission Chairman Cooper, Senator Thruston B. Morton, and Representative Frank Chelf, all of Kentucky, formally presented to Carl Howell, president of the Hodgenville Chamber of Commerce, the Post Office Department’s cancellation die hub, especially prepared for commemorative use at the Hodgenville Post Office during Lincoln Year. The die was inscribed : “Lincoln’s Birthplace, Sesquicentennial, 1809- 1959”

Mr. Howell turned the die over to Postmaster Russell Parker, who began using it on January 1, 1959, to cancel all mail issuing from the Hodgenville Post Office. At this ceremony, also attended by Mr. George M. Moore, executive assistant to the Postmaster General, announcement was made of the first-day issue of the new 1-cent Lincoln stamp. This second stamp in the commemorative series was arranged vertically, printed in green and measured 0.84 by 1.44 inches in size. It bore the head of Lincoln from the famous portrait by George Peter Alexander Healy. After Lincoln’s election to the Presidency in 1860, he sat for a portrait by this famous American artist. This portrait, known as the “Beardless Lincoln,” is owned by the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C, and was used for the design of the stamp. Initial quantity issued: 90 million.

If you look at the original Healy portrait you will notice that Ervine Metzl’s stamp design departs just slightly from a literal copy. The features are the same, but the pose has been adjusted with a slight twist to the neck and tilt to the head. Compare the angle of the shoulders in the original compared to Metzl’s pose. Posing, like fashion, changes over time.

The third stamp in the commemorative series was of 3-cent denomination, arranged vertically, the same 0.84 by 1.44 inches in size, and maroon in color. It featured the sculptured head of Lincoln by Gutzon Borglum which was completed in 1906 in marble and is now in the rotunda of the Capitol in Washington, D.C. The first-day sale ceremony was held at the Cooper Union in New York on February 27, 1959, as a prelude to Cooper Union’s own centennial year and marked the 99th anniversary of Lincoln’s address there. It was on February 27, 1860, that Lincoln, speaking in the Great Hall of the Cooper Union, delivered what has come to be known as his famous “right makes might” speech. As he concluded his address, the campaigner said :

‘Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.’

As a memento of this first-day-issue ceremony, the printed program carried a picture of Lincoln delivering his Cooper Union Address on the front cover and the first-day cancellation on the inside. The Honorable Robert F. Wagner, mayor of New York City, gave greetings; Postmaster General Summerfield delivered the address; and Dr. Edwin S. Burdell, president of the Cooper Union, responded. Initial quantity of stamps issued was 90 million. There were 1,576,866 stamps sold in New York City on this first day of issue and 437,737 covers canceled.

Compare the stamp design with a photo of the Capitol’s Borglum Lincoln bust. The name Gutzon Borglum may be more familiar to you as the sculptor of Mount Rushmore.

The fourth and final stamp in the Sesquicentennial series was placed on first-day sale at a special ceremony on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., May 30, 1959. This date also marked the anniversary of the completion of the Lincoln Memorial, the most popular shrine in the United States. The stamp, printed in blue, arranged horizontally and measuring 0.84 by 1.44 inches, featured a drawing by Fritz Busse of the head of Lincoln in the Memorial sculpted by Daniel Chester French.

Cosponsored by the Lincoln Sesquicentennial Commission and the Post Office Department, the stamp dedication ceremony drew an audience of several hundred persons, including diplomats. Cabinet officers, Members of Congress, Lincoln enthusiasts, and scores of visitors to the Nation’s Capital. Following the Presentation of Colors by the Joint Services Color Guard and an invocation by Maj. Gen. Frank A. Tobey, Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army, the audience heard a stirring eulogy to Mr. Lincoln by John B. Fisher, a member of the Commission’s Executive Committee. Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton- delivered an address of welcome, Deputy Postmaster General Edson O. Sessions gave the dedication address, and Mrs. Katharine McCook Knox, an honorary member of the Commission, presented to the Post Office Department a reproduction of the Healy portrait of Lincoln on which the i-cent stamp in the series is based. L. Rohe Walter, special assistant to the Postmaster General, presided.

Oregon Statehood Centennial

The Oregon Statehood issue, Scott #1124, was designed by illustrator Robert Hallock. The wagon is unhorsed, signifying that the travelers have arrived at their destination, perhaps having traveled along the famed Oregon Trail. The star represents statehood. You can see Mt. Hood on the right.

Ten Years of NATO

Only 10 years? This seems like an unsubstantial achievement. Or was this beating expectations? Keep in mind the world of 1959: Castro in charge in Cuba, the first American dies in Vietnam, the Space Race heating up, and de Gaulle withdrawing France from NATO in 1959, preferring to develop their own force de frappe deterrent. So I’m not sure what exactly we were celebrating.

The design here is by Stevan Dohanos, a social realist illustrator known for his Saturday Evening Post covers.

Arctic Explorations

This design by George Samerjan marks two events: the 50th anniversary of Admiral Peary reaching the North Pole, and the 1959 sub-polar transit (Operation Sunshine) of the nuclear submarine “Nautilus”.

(Btw, it is well worth a trip to Groton, Connecticut to visit the Submarine Force Museum. If you are not claustrophobic you can take a self-guided tour of the Nautilus.)

World Peace through World Trade

There is an IBM connection on this one. Former IBM president — and a giant of industry and commerce — Thomas J. Watson, Sr., coined this phrase in an address to the International Chamber of Commerce in 1937. It then became an IBM advertising slogan which was featured for many years on a 30-foot sign on the side of 590 Madison Ave in NYC.

It is interesting that the slogan was pre-war, though the stamp is post-war. Certainly the optimism of world peace in 1937 was not very prescient. But post-war there was a string of successes including Bretton Woods (1944), GATT (1947) and the Marshall Plan (1948). For a generation that saw two world wars and world-wide depression, there was a lot to be optimistic about in 1959.

The design by Robert Baker, features a globe and laurel.

Centennial of the Comstock Lode

Silver was discovered in Utah Territory (now Nevada) in 1859 on the slopes of Mt. Davison. The commemorative stamp, designed by Robert L. Miller and W.K. Schrage is based on an old print which I have not been able to identify.

Of course, this is a romanticized view of the original event, which was soaked in blood and whiskey. No mention is made of the most significant social result of the silver rush, namely the instability introduced into the US currency system, then based on gold and silver, by the rapid increase in the silver supply. Left uncorrected this would have lead to inflation, which was favored by those in debt. This became the largest political issue of the day, culminating in the Coinage Act of 1873 (which de-monetized silver) and the 1896 presidential campaign of the populist William Jennings Bryan and his renowned “Cross of Gold” speech:

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway

The St. Lawrence Seaway was opened in 1959, a joint U.S.-Canadian venture that connected the Great Lakes to the sea, an event considered momentous enough to warrant a contemporary stamp issue. The design of the stamp was also a collaborative venture, by Arnold Copeland, Ervine Metzl, William H. Buckley and Gerald Trottier. There was a corresponding Canadian stamp featuring the same design which was issued simultaneously.

The 49-Star Flag

Alaska joined the Union as the 49th state on January 3rd, 1959. The design of the Union (that portion of the flag which has the stars) was updated to include the 49th star, but this design was in use only for a short period of time, since Hawaii became the 50th state later that year. So the 49-star flag was only officially used from July 4, 1959 to July 3, 1960. It must have been good business for flag makers that year.

So what happens if a new state is added in the future, say Washington, DC, or Puerto Rico? USC Title 4, Chapter 1, § 2 covers this:

On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission.

What about the design? Where exactly do you put a 51st or 52nd star? The US Army’s Department of Heraldry has that covered, with contigency designs for 51-56 stars. Just in case.

Soil Conservation

Now here’s a topic you don’t hear a lot about these days. Errosion. Soil conservation. Contour plowing. We don’t hear much about it these days, mainly because the movement, lead by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service after the 1930’s “Dust Bowl”, was successful. By plowing fields parallel to the natural contours of the land, water run-off was reduced, preventing topsoil errosion, improving the efficiency of irrigation and increasing crop yields.

Centennial of Drake’s Oil Well

When you think of oil wells, you typically don’t think of Pennsylvania. But that is where a lot of the early work happened, including the first US oil refinery (Pittsburgh) and Colonel Edwin L. Drake’s early oil well (some claim it to be the first in the U.S.) in Titusville. Of course, there were no automobiles in 1859. Coal was king. So what kind of “petroleum” industry was there? Kerosene, mainly for lamps, as a replacement for whale oil.

American Dental Association Centennial

The American Dental Association resulted from a merger of several smaller associations at a convention in Niagra Falls in 1859. The Association’s 1959 centennial celebrations in New York City made the headlines due to an unplanned intersection with cold war politics. The Association had booked the Waldorf Astoria for their celebrations, but the day before their event, they received a call from the City asking if they would relinquish that space so the City could hold a luncheon in honor of the visiting Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The Association refused to give up their space, a stance warmly supported by Vice-President Nixon, who was a featured speaker at their event. Probably a wise choice. Remember, this was a time when many thought that fluoridation of water was a communist conspiracy. If the ADA had yielded publicly before Khrushchev it would have given the lunatic fringe more fodder.

Planned Migration of An Antic Disposition

2009/12/16 By Rob 5 Comments

Sometime over the next two weeks I’ll be migrating An Antic Disposition over to WordPress, introducing a new visual theme, and relocating to a new hosting company. This will allow some additional capabilities that I look forward to enabling down the road.

My plan is to preserve all of the comments during the migration, not to break any incoming links, and to minimize any downtime. That is the plan. But minimal downtime is not the same as zero downtime, so don’t be surprised if you see me not here, at least occasionally.

One last thing to check, dear reader, especially if you follow me via my feed. Around a year ago I wrapped my feed via FeedBurner. If you have subscribed since then, you should be fine, since that FeedBurner URL will continue to work. However, if you still subscribe to my old original Blogger feed (http://www.blogger.com/feeds/11236681/posts/full) then you will need to resubscribe with the new URL:

The main feed is: http://feeds.feedburner.com/robweir/antic-atom

12/28/09 Update

I’ve completed the migration from Blogger to WordPress. It went easier than anticipated. The posts and comments came over without problems. I think I was able to preserve almost all of the post permalinks. I’ll monitor the logs for 404 errors and add 303 redirects to fix any remaining URL mismatches. However, I have not made any attempt to preserve the URLs for the archive or tag pages. For the various legacy feeds, I’ve redirected all of them to the FeedBurner feed.

The Relevancy of ODF 1.0

2009/12/14 By Rob 10 Comments

By the time you read this (actually probably by the time I finish writing this post) a ballot approving the Public Review Draft of ODF 1.2, Part 1 will have passed. Part 1 is the largest of the three parts of ODF 1.2, and reaching a Public Review Draft status is a major accomplishment. Expect to see an official notice of the start of the public review period over the next few days.

But as we look forward to ODF 1.2, and then beyond to “ODF-Next”, it is worth giving some consideration to what we do with ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.0.

Today, if you surveyed ODF implementations, you would find that the preponderance of them write ODF 1.1 documents by default. Twelve months ago many of them wrote out ODF 1.0 format, and in another 12 months I predict most will be writing out ODF 1.2 format by default.

So what does this mean for ODF the standard?

Every 5 years each ISO standard undergoes what is called “Periodic Review”. The outcome of this review is to classify the standard as one of: confirmed, revised, stabilized or withdrawn. If it is confirmed, it means the standard is of continued relevancy and is still undergoing maintenance. Revised means it is currently undergoing revision and periodic review is not necessary. Stabilized means it “has ongoing validity and effectiveness but is mature and insofar as can be determined will not require further maintenance of any sort”. And a standard is withdrawn (the most extreme option) if it has been declared unsafe, has a non-RAND patent asserted against it, or is “no longer in use”.

Some of the nattering nabobs in SC34 (e.g., Alex Brown) are floating the idea that ODF 1.0 should be withdrawn from ISO, claiming it is not implemented and not relevant. At the recent SC34 meeting in Paris this view was echoed by a Microsoft participant (one of many) in the meeting, who additionally urged that a motion to withdraw ODF 1.0 be brought forward at the Stockholm SC34 Plenary in March.

I think this shows an extraordinarily poor understanding of how documents and document format standards work. ODF is not a standard for a transient phenomenon, like a network or telephone protocol standard, that is no longer relevant when the last producer of the network protocol is gone from the market and the last signal fades from the wire. ODF specifies a document format, and documents persist and remain relevant so long as the documents and their owners remain.

Additionally, and especially in public sector use, there are regulatory or statutory requirements for how long documents (records) must be preserved. Some for 3 years, some for 7, some for 30 years, and some records must be preserved forever. Just because ODF 1.2 comes along does not make ODF 1.0 retention and public access requirements go away.

Although most major ODF editors now write out new documents in ODF 1.1 format by default, they all are able to read and process ODF 1.0 documents as well. So they are all “consumers” of ODF 1.0 and conform to the ODF 1.0 standard. This occurs at the same time they are also conforming ODF 1.1 “producers”. So it is absolutely false to say that there are no ODF 1.0 implementations today. There are many, including OpenOffice, Symphony, Google Docs, KOffice, even Microsoft Office. The are all ODF 1.0 consumers.

We should also consider the needs of new word processors that implement ODF, since there are still a few that do not support ODF yet, like Apple’s iWork. When they eventually implement ODF they will want to implement write support (“producer” conformance) for the current version of ODF, as well as read support (“consumer” conformance) for earlier versions of ODF. So to enable competition in this space, and allow for new players, we must preserve access to the relevant legacy standards. Otherwise we would be perpetuating the type of information exclusion we typically associate with Microsoft, in the decades when they restricted access to their legacy formats.

In any case, it is still puzzling to me why some are pushing for the very unusual and extreme action of withdrawing ODF 1.0 from ISO. This doesn’t pass the sniff test. Something is rotten here. This is an anti-competition, anti-user, anti-adopter and overtly political move, lead by Microsoft employees and Microsoft consultants in the Microsoft-dominated JTC1/SC34. (I wish I had a pump big enough to drain that swamp.) Ironically, by questioning the relevancy of ODF 1.0, they will cause many more to question the relevancy of SC34.

At some point, I agree that stabilization may be something to consider in the future. But for now, ODF does not fit in that category because it is actively undergoing maintenance. SC34 members, including Alex Brown, have submitted defect reports against ODF 1.0, and the OASIS ODF TC is responding to them. It is quite reasonable to expect that ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2 will be broadly implemented at the same time as ODF 1.0 continues to undergo corrective maintenance. That is the nature of document format standards like ODF. Their relevancy, as perceived by users and adopters of the standard, is determined by the mass of legacy documents in the format, not on whether their current word processor saves in that format by default.

[12/15/09 Doug Mahugh today wrote to the OASIS ODF TC list, apprently concerned that this blog post might be misread as an official statement of the OASIS ODF TC. I’ve attempted to dispel such notions in my response on that list. As I’ve made abundantly clear on my Who is Rob Weir page, “The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of any of my employers or the organizations I’m associated with”.

My practice is simple: I am not speaking as OASIS ODF TC Co-Chair, unless I am posting ODF TC agendas, minutes or similar official ODF TC notices to the ODF TC’s mailing list, or when I explicitly sign my name with the title, “Co-Chair, OASIS ODF TC”.]

Asking the right questions about Office 2010’s OOXML support

2009/11/17 By Rob 19 Comments

There is more OOXML controversy in the news, this time in Denmark. I don’t claim to understand all the nuances of the accusations, since I don’t read Danish, and Google Translates makes it sound at times like a discussion about loaves of rye bread or something, but the gist of it, as I can surmise from this account, is whether Office 2010 will “support the complete ISO-approved version of OOXML”. Microsoft’s spokesperson says it will. Mogens Kühn Pedersen, chair of the Danish Standards Committee, says it will not.

This is the kind of dispute where you can go around in circles with for days and not reach agreement. The problem is they are arguing over words, not facts, and they do not agree perfectly on the meaning of the words. Words like “support” and “complete” and “conform” are used in different ways, with different meanings and intents.

Let’s try to escape the equivocation and instead try to establish the underling facts. I can’t promise that this will clarify the situation any. In fact I suspect we’ll end up even more confused about what exactly Office 2010 actually supports. But replacing a false certainty with an honest uncertainty is progress of a kind. It gives us something we can build on.

First, we need to acknowledge that OOXML entered ISO as one standard, and was transformed, via the BRM and ISO ballot, formally into 4 standards, ISO/IEC 29500 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Within these parts are are several different conformance targets and conformance classes. In particular, these 4 standards encompass two different and incompatible schemas for many of its features: “Strict” and “Transitional”. What Microsoft submitted in the Fast Track is essentially the “Transitional” schema. What was created by the BRM was the “Strict” schema. This is where Microsoft made most of its “concessions” in order to turn “No” votes into “Yes” votes. So things like support for spreadsheet dates before the year 1900, the elimination of VML graphics, etc., these are all in the “Strict” schema. All the legacy “DoItLikeWord95” garbage was in “Transitional” only. Several NBs voted to approve OOXML because the assertion that “Transitional” would not be written in documents produced by future versions of MS Office. The promise was that it was…well…transitional, for moving legacy binary documents into XML. Few people want to support two different document standards (both ODF and OOXML) in the first place. But to require support for two different and incompatible versions of OOXML — that is simply intolerable.

In any case, because of these two conformance classes, anyone who claims that their product supports “OOXML” in an unqualified sense, without stating which conformance target or conformance classes they are supporting, is not stating anything of substance. It is like trying to buy an electrical plug adapter by just saying “I need electricity”. Merely saying “conformance to OOXML” means nothing. You need to state the conformance targets and classes that you support. Remember, the conformance language of OOXML is so loose that even a shell statement of “cat foo.docx > /dev/null” would qualify as a conformant application. I assume that Office 2010 supports at least that.

Of course, the alleged assertion that Office 2010 supports OOXML “completely” is a bit more problematic. What exactly does this mean? Does this mean that Office 2010 supports all conformance classes and targets of all four parts of OOXML? Including being a Strict consumer? A Strict producer? That would be a good thing, IMHO, if it were true. But that is not what ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34/WG4 was recently told in Seattle, where they were told that Office would not write out Strict documents until Office 16. That would put it out to the middle of the next decade, assuming the typical 3-year Office release schedule.

So I’ll lay out my assertions (with the caveat that Office 2010 is not complete and shipped yet) as:

Office 2010 will conform to the Transitional consumer and producer classes defined in the OOXML standards. Any bugs that are found in the shipped version of Office 2010 will be “fixed” by retroactively changing the standards to match what Office actually does, as is currently being done by Microsoft-packed SC34/WG4 committee with similar bugs found in Office 2007’s OOXML support.
Office 2010 will not have conforming support for OOXML Strict producer or consumer classes.
Office 2010 will write dozens of non-interoperable, proprietary extensions into their OOXML documents, extensions which are not defined by the OOXML standards and which have not been reviewed or standardized by any standards committee and which will not be fully interoperable with other OOXML editors, or even with previous versions of MS Office.

So instead of arguing over the meaning of “support” and “complete” I suggest some alternate questions for Microsoft, to give them the opportunity to clarify exactly what kind of support for OOXML will be coming in Office 2010:

Exactly what ISO/IEC 29500:2008 conformance classes and targets will Office 2010 conform to?
Is this contingent on first changing the conformance requirements of the published ISO/IEC 29500:2008 standards to match what Office 2010 actually supports? Or is there a commitment to support the published standards as they was approved by JTC1 national bodies? In other words, is Microsoft committed to conform to the standards, or are we back to changing the standards to “conform” to Microsoft?
Will Microsoft Office 2010 write out only markup that is fully described in the OOXML standards? Or will it write out proprietary markup extensions that are not fully defined in the standards? In other words, will Office 2010 be “strictly conformant” with the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 standards?

The problem you run into here is that there are really two different OOXML standards: the new and improved OOXML Strict conformance class, the one that was “sold” to ISO NBs, the one that garnered the approval votes, and then the old ugly one, the “haunted” specification, the Transitional conformance class, supported only by Microsoft Office. Anyone considering adopting OOXML should have perfect clarity as to which one they are adopting, especially since these are two very different standards, both formally and logically. Just as it is problematic to speak about OOXML support in a product without stating which conformance classes and targets are supported, it is equally a defect of any adoption policy to be loose in what version of OOXML is being proposed for adoption.

IMHO, if you must state a requirement for OOXML (along with ODF), at least specify it clearly, and state a requirement for “strict conformance” (meaning no extensions) of the Strict conformance classes of ISO/IEC 29500:2008. To do otherwise is to essentially specify a requirement for the use of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office alone.

ODF 1.2, Part 3 goes out for Public Review

2009/11/16 By Rob 4 Comments

A major milestone for ODF 1.2 was reached on Friday. Part 3 of ODF 1.2, which specifies document packaging (how a document’s XML, images and metadata are combined into a single file and are optionally encrypted or signed), went out for a 60-day public review period. This public review period will run through January 12th, 2010. A public review is a necessary OASIS procedure before a Committee Draft can be approved as a Committee Specification and then as an OASIS Standard.

The official announcement of the review has more information, including links to download the public review draft and information on how to submit comments on the draft.

Compared to the packaging specification used in ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1, the main differences are:

We’ve split this material into its own specification, since these packaging conventions are more widely applicable, and in fact have been more widely used than just in ODF. For example, the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF), who standardize the increasingly important ePub digital book format, use ODF’s packaging as the base of their Open eBook Publication Structure Container Format (OCF) 1.0 specification.
We’ve added digital signature support (chapter 4) based on the W3C’s XML Digital Signature Core, including the ability to use standardized extensions such as XAdES.
We now have an RDF-based metadata framework with OWL ontology for the manifest file (chapter 5).
We include a more detailed conformance definition has been added, including conformance targets for packages, producers and consumers, as well as a separate conformance class for extended packages.
Generally, a redraft of the specification to ISO style guidelines.

This specification is only 34 pages long, so if you’re at all interested please give it a look between now and January 12th, and send along any comments via the office-comment list. Anything that improves the specification is welcome, from reports of typographical errors, to technical omissions or errors, to suggestions for future features. It is all good.

And if you want to follow along, you can track the incoming comments in several ways:

Subscribe to the office-comment list mentioned above.
View the archives of the off-comment list.
View the public review comments we’re tracking in JIRA. I have a python script that scrapes the office-comment list and enters them into JIRA. This will be more complete than the office-comment list because it will includes additional comments from ODF TC.
I have another python script that takes each newly entered issue from JIRA and sends it out via Twitter. So you can follow all new ODF issues by subscribing to @ODFJIRA. Depending on your Twitter reader, you might be able to mark some issues as “favorites” and return to them later to see how they have been resolved. (While you’re at it, you might also follow me, @RCWeir)

Also, keep your eye open for the announcement of a public review for ODF 1.2, Part 1 (ODF Schema) and Part 2 (OpenFormula), which will be ready for review soon.