MS Anti-ODF Lobbyist Named As MA Tech Advisor

Andy Updegrove writes "For the last year and a half, Massachusetts has been a battleground between Microsoft, on the one hand, and IBM, Sun and open standards advocates on the other over the state's plans to implement ODF. That effort has sparked similar initiatives around the world that threaten to erode Microsoft's multi-billion dollar profits on Office software. Now, we have a new governor set to take office, and observers are waiting to see if he will continue to support ODF like his predecessor, or back off in favor of Microsoft Office. Last week, Governor-Elect Deval Patrick named a new transition advisory group to make recommendations on the state's IT structure, and one of the eight members he appointed was none other than the Microsoft lobbyist that has been leading the charge to not only defeat ODF in the Bay State, but to gut the power of the State's CIO and Information Technology Division as well. Not a good sign of independence from special interests for an administration that has yet to even take office."

Both Sides are Special Interests

[ThinkFr33ly]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Just because you agree with one side more than the other doesn't make it any less "special".

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at Slashdot it does. Unfortunately, it generally means special in the short bus sense.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

No. One side is a special interest and the other side is in everyones interest. That's why MA are standardising on ODF to begin with.

Re:

[rucs_hack]

get your tenses right 'were standardising'.

This does not sound like they are going to carry on with ODF. Ok, perhaps they won't cancell it, but you can bet 'new facts' will emerge that cast doubt, huge discounts will appear, and suddenly ODF won't be as interesting as it once was.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that if the special interests backing ODF win, then there is a benefit to the citizens of Massachusetts. If Microsoft wins, the state is sponsoring a monopoly.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[CheeseTroll]

Right. And I hear that Richard Stallman is setting up his own K Street lobbying firm to enhance his corporate profits by promoting open standards.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[MeNeXT]

I love people who define their own meaning in common terms. The term "Special Interests" is used when someone has a personal gain. The use of standards compliant solutions, be they in IT or any other field, are a benefit to the society as a whole. I sure as hell would not like to go to a Doctors office and be told to take 2 aspirins and expect it to be something else...

A standard is not owned by anyone. DOC files are not standard and are subject to change at the whim of one and only one company. As we keep on playing with words, one day we will no longer understand each other.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[MeNeXT]

Like I said;


The term special interest

The slogan special interest is used for all of these variants, but never to describe political allies. Use of that term, especially in the United States, implies that the "special" interest is not the "public" interest. Many scholars dislike the term special interest, since it carries this loaded, negative connotation. Among other things, it presumes that we know exactly what the general interest (or public interest) is. Some use vested interests or particularistic groups, but in academic literature, these have been replaced by "interest group".


While this comes from Wikipedia it is also how it's defined in a few other paper prints. "Special Interest" denotes not in the "Public Interest". A standard is in the public interest. A proprietary format is special interest, in this case Microsoft.

If we continue playing we can make the words say what we want and no longer understand each other. If you look closely at your definition it implies "not in the public interest". In a sense you make my point.

Re:

[MeNeXT]

Those that oppose are in the "Public Interest". They oppose the fact that the public, including gun owners, is at risk of personal injury or death by people who own guns. If you can remove the risk inherent to the public from gun ownership then they will go away. Invent a gun that does not kill or injure people.

On the other hand if the US government would legislate that all citizens would be given a gun and all the ammunition they could possibly use, the NRA would not go away. (OVER SIMPLIFICATION) They are

If that was an example, you missed your point.

[Kadin2048]

They are about the right to profit from the ownership of guns, which is not in the public interest.

What sort of crack are you smoking? That's not even close to right. The original purpose of the NRA was to promote marksmanship and other shooting sports, because at the time of its founding, Americans really sucked hard when it came to hitting anything with a gun, and this meant the military had to spend a lot of extra time training people. It was a public service organization.

Today, depending on which part

Re:

[rthille]

I didn't own a gun before 9/11.
I didn't own a gun after 9/11.

I bought my gun after the Patriot Act was passed. I figured that given the legislation the government was passing, I needed to do more to _really_ be patriotic. That is, be willing (and ready) to stand up to a tyranical government.

If the secret torture prisions, NSA wire tapping, etc. haven't convinced you that a gun is a tool you should own, then by the time you really need it, you won't be able to get one.

Re:

[theshowmecanuck]

Your argument is somewhat spurious and misses the point that the interest on the other side from Microsoft is not the other companies, but the general public.

Keeping a proprietary Microsoft format means at a minimum, requiring a Microsoft operating system to view the files. This assumes the O/S comes with a free (otherwise cha-ching, more money) 'doc' viewer and does not also require the person to have to pay for an internet connection to download the viewer. And unless their viewer is NOT like most, if

Re:

[theshowmecanuck]

The person who started this was the CIO for the state of MASS not open office. It wasn't the MS competitors fighting. In fact I haven't really seen any fighting (except for MS trying to keep their market dominance). The state of MASS have made it a business requirement to use ODF to avoid 'lock in'. Any vendor can choose to meet the requirement or not. You really are starting to sound like a shill for MS. Do you complain so much when you hear about software projects abstracting their data persistence

Re:

[rucs_hack]

they are a de facto standard, just not an open or official standard (although in fact many organisations define it as a standard format for information interchange). Just bandying definitions about does nothing, 99.9999999999% of offices use doc and excel, time to wake up and accept the truth, however you define it, MS doc format, current and later versions *are* the ones most people will use, making them effectivelly standard in the eyes of most people sorry and all.

ODF is an open standard, which is entire

Re:

[blueskies]

99.9999999999% of offices use doc and excel

So, you are saying that if i find 2 offices that don't use doc and excel out of the 1,000 Billion here on earth, i have proved you wrong?

Re:

[rucs_hack]

actually a frillion of the works population use it, possibly more. Anything else you observe is probably just hallucination.

That's not the point

[l2718]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Indeed, but you have to understand the difference between a lobbyist advocating a solution (he was paid to do so regardless of the merits) and a civil servant advocating a solution (he was paid to dispassionately figure out what the best solution is). Appointing a lobbyist for a policy-making committee is silly not because we may disagree with his former employer, but because lobbying and making policy decisions require completely orthogonal skills. For example, I would expect a former lobbyist called upon to make decisions to give undue credence to other lobbists, and to care about political agenda more than technical issues.

It's even worse

[l2718]

Digging deeper, it seems the shill is still an MS employee [consortiuminfo.org]. Can you really trust someone who says he "will be participating as a private citizen rather than a Microsoft employee" in a committee that affects a significant Microsoft business interest?

Re:It's even worse

[erroneus]

This practice should be illegal. Only in particular circumstances are officials require to recuse themselves in situations where conflicts of interest are present. The most commonly observed instance would be in the case of a judge trying a case involving a party where he has an interest or a prejudicial opinion and might otherwise be prevented from rendering an unbiased ruling.

This practice needs to be performed at all levels of government except where it's not practical. We shouldn't have the dairy association making USRDA recommendations to the FDA when it comes to milk consumption. We shouldn't have a Microsoft employee (and likely stock holder) in a position to make recommendations or otherwise influence decision making about whether or not to make ANY decisions where a choice to include or exclude Microsoft products or services for the public is concerned. It's simply inappropriate.

If anyone here is living in that state, I recommend pushing for a recusal policy where such a person would be required to recuse himself from any policy making decisions where his employer's interests are involved.

Re:

[dzelenka]

I think you exactly 180 degrees wrong. If the State is to make an informed decision then it needs to hear the Microsoft argument for sticking with the Office formats. Call him the Devil's Advocate if you wish, but hearing both sides is necessary to reach an informed decision.

If the State decides to stick with ODF and the committee has no Microsoft representation then Microsoft could claim that both sides were not heard. With this MS employee on the committee they can never say that their side of the story w

Re:

[erroneus]

Would it have been okay for the judge hearing a Microsoft antitrust case to have also been a major shareholder or Microsoft attorney?

To have decision makers HEAR from all parties interested is just common sense. But to have a decision maker that is employed by one of the parties under consideration? Come on.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If the State is to make an informed decision then it needs to hear the Microsoft argument for sticking with the Office formats.

True... but completely beside the point. Microsoft salespeople and engineers will definitely be presenting information, just like every other vendor looking to sell things to the state. That is completely different from one of their employees being on the state payroll to help make decision about whether or not buy things from their employer. It's like hiring an executive from Co

Re:

[ThinkFr33ly]

Indeed, but you have to understand the difference between a lobbyist advocating a solution (he was paid to do so regardless of the merits) and a civil servant advocating a solution (he was paid to dispassionately figure out what the best solution is).

Not sure what about my post would suggest that I don't understand there is a difference. My post was merely to criticize the original story poster for ignore the fact that the ODF-side of things are also a special interest. Furthermore, there is no reason to th

Re:

[Tran]

"I was simply saying that the people arguing for ODF to win were not some kind of benevolent entity with only the interests of the people in mind." Hmm do you have some kind of proof of that? Who and what organization would stand to gain from ODF? The only organization I see that would gain would be "We, the people".

Disagreed

[Anonymous Coward]

This could, indeed, be the situation in some cases. But the distinction between companies and people that are 'monetarily rewarded' as per definition biased in favour of the monetary view, and those 'not monetarily rewarded' (in this case e.g. university researchers) who as you say "dispassionately figure out what the best solution is" is monumentally misguided.

Why is that? Because there are plenty of NON-MONETARY motivations someone can have to bias a statement, research, experimental piece or whatever. Pa

Re:

[Shawn is an Asshole]

By using ODF, everyone wins. Word users can use it [sourceforge.net]. OpenOffice users can use it. Abiword users can use it (though, even with the most recent version I've had problems with it's import/export). Other applications should be implementing it. No lock in is there. With a Microsoft format, if you want to view it correctly you have to use a Microsoft program on a Microsoft approved OS.

The new Office OpenXML format should improve things though, but OpenOffice will still be locked out. Novell is supposed to

Re:

[rbanffy]

Sure.

On one side there is the special interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who would rather not have to purchase a specific brand of computer program in order to interact with the local government.

On other side are the special interests of a convicted monopoly abuser, who is willing to spend a huge amount of money for not allowing really open formats being mandated as it would undermine the very monopoly it loves to abuse.

Re:Both Sides are Special Interests

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

No. One side is a vendor neutral policy created by the state and aimed at improving the technology used by the state. The other is one company lobbying the government to get rid of the vendor neutral policy and standardize only their company as a supplier. Appointing an employee of one of the companies bidding as your tech advisor is not exactly indicative of impartial decision making.

Re:

[molarmass192]

Appointing an employee of one of the companies bidding as your tech advisor is not exactly indicative of impartial decision making.

I thought the same thing ... at first ... but then, if you think about it, this guy was PAID to take that stance. Now he's in a position where he can be paid to take a different stance. I seriously doubt that this guy has any personal preference either way. If he can be bought one way, I'm sure he can be bought the other way. The question is, is he still employed by the same

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The question is, is he still employed by the same lobbyist firm?

It is my understanding that he works for Microsoft directly and is still employed by them as a regional director of PR. I read something about a comment where he would be acting as a private individual not an MS employee for that issue. It seems a clear conflict of interest.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If using MS Word and Windows allows them to do thier jobs quicker and/or do them more efficiently then so be it. But if you want to switch away from it, you'd better be able to PROVE it's all going to be worth it, and frankly I haven't seen that, or believe it.

Government officials evaluated their needs and then made a policy based upon what they felt was best for the state. That was ODF. That is not a special interest. A special interest is when some group or company tries to convince the state to do som

Re:

[burnin1965]

Both sides of the Microsoft vs ODF battle are special interests.

Actually no, one side is a special interest. Microsoft is paying lobbyists to sway government policy so that Microsoft will profit. Microsoft is the special and the profit is the interest. The Microsoft side of the arguement serves only Microsoft's interest in profits. Microsoft can sell software that supports ODF so the only reason to not support ODF is to again ensure their own interest, profit in a monopoly.

ODF is a standard developed by an

Re:

[JacksBrokenCode]

Truly the bastion of objectivity here. A short, non-agressive comment be modded "troll" just because it doesn't agree with popular thinking.

Re:

[Locutus]

Right, one side promoting a publicly open and patent free specification called ODF and the other fighting against it each can be considered 'special' interests. But it sure sounds like being on one side or the other is VERY different. I mean after all, Micrsoft Office could support ODF if Micrsoft wanted it to since ODF is an OPEN and publicly available specification. This is really about Microsoft losing the ability to lock its customers to the Microsoft products and not about the states ability to access

Next up on the polticial agenda...

[__aaclcg7560]

Ballmer will be nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. If those foreigners thought Bolten was scary, they haven't seen the chair hit the fan yet.

Re:

[Clazzy]

Don't worry, I think the chairs are bolted down there.

Re:

[SoundGuyNoise]

Great...a sweaty Ballmer running around the U.N.:
"Ambassadors! Ambassdors! Ambassadors! Ambassadors!"

Re:

[maxume]

As long as it is Iran's fan that gets smashed by the chair, sounds like sound diplomatic policy to me.

Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[RedHat Rocky]

Given the rest of the board is reasonable, it's a little early to be shouting "The Sky is Falling".

A reasonable strategy would be to throw the two sides into a kettle and see who wins out. This may be an attempt to shorten the communication lines and ultimately be a good thing.

Knee-jerk, get thee behind me!

An even more reasonable strategy

[Mateo_LeFou]

Get impartial engineers and technicians to analyze -- *scientifically (gasp!) -- the pros and cons of the various formats.

Oh wait ... that's pretty much what was done, and nearly everyone who didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office supported open standards.

Re:

[Pollardito]

i seem to recall that there were some "equal-access for the handicapped" advocates that didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office that had concerns

Re:

[Trelane]

i seem to recall that there were some "equal-access for the handicapped" advocates that didn't have a buck to make off of MS Office that had concerns

after Microsoft had a "chat" with them, as I recall.

Furthermore, they are misinformed because OpenOffice has pretty good accessiblity support--just not on Microsoft Windows , due to Windows issues and no fault of its own.

Quoth Peter Korn [sun.com]

Users with disabilities might move to a UNIX/GNOME desktop, and utilize the assistive technologies there to interac

Re:

[larkost]

You are misusing the word "scientifically". I am fairly sure that you really wanted the word "rationally" or possibly "impartially", not that you wanted them to use the scientific method to conduct experiments on the formats.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

You're limiting the word too much. The "method" we all learned about in middle school is not the sum total of science.

I use it to indicate the presence of what Feigl would call "scientific meaningfulness"... scientific statements are those that can be confirmed intersubjectively, or falsified. Discussions are scientific when the statements therein *could be experimentally tested, whether or not they actually are so tested.

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[syphax]

Let's see what we have here, viewed from an open standards/FOSS perspective, from someone with no prior knowledge of anyone in the group:

Technology Working Group:

Chair, Charles SteelFisher, New Media Director, Deval Patrick Committee
Creative director at ALIPES CME [alipescme.com]. Original Flash site that takes a few minutes to figure out what the hell is going on. I like it and hate it all at once. Wife(?) is director of Strategy at Cogent Research [cogentresearch.com]. Verdict: Not promising, but who knows.

Chair, Richard Rowe, CEO, Rowe Communications
Not a lot of info there! [rowe.com]
More info in the bio here [onlisareinsradar.com]. Looks like an interesting guy. "He is the author of numerous articles and frequent speaker on the impact of digitization and the internet upon society with a particular focus on access to and preservation of academic, scientific, technical and medical knowledge." That could go either way, but sounds good.

Brian Burke, Microsoft
For what it's worth, this is a broad technology working group (not just on, say, standards), so I don't think it's insane to have MS at the table. But there are software companies with deeper MA roots...

John Cullinane, Principal, The Cullinane Group [cullinane-group.com]
Was a trailblazer in the proprietary software industry (a href='http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/culli nane.html'>Cullinane Corp), which is kinda sorta threatened by FOSS. That said, who knows where his head is at today.

Louis Gutierrez, former State CIO and Director of ITD
Former as in about a month ago. He's our man! [com.com]

Keith Parent, CEO, Court Square [csdg.com]
Let's see, found here [csdg.com] that they have "Extensive experience with Wintel, Unix, Citrix and Linux platforms" and "Successful migration projects include; VMS to NT, NT to Unix, NT to Linux." Sounds reasonably OK to me, though a little dated!

David Lewis, Private Consultant
I presume this is him [watervilleconsulting.com]. On the board at the Mass Tech Dev Corp [mtdc.com], and has done a lot of state IT work, so he's certainly relevant. Can't find anything about him re: ODF.

Larry Weber, Chairman, W2 Group
This talk [itconversations.com] suggests that Larry "gets it", but I haven't listened to it yet. IT Conversations is awesome, by the way. find the Clayton Christensen talk on open source. Here it is [itconversations.com].

All told, as someone sympathetic to FOSS, who thinks FOSS is good for most businesses, I find this group to be well qualified, and apparently with a diverse set of viewpoints on standards and such. Diversity is good. I'll be watching this group as closely as I can.

Re:

[Locutus]

I don't think many would have a problem with someone on this board being pro-Microsoft but being FROM Microsoft and being anti-ODF, this guy does not belong on the board. IMO. He may have an alternate view but we all know it'll be skewed for financial reasons. If he's totally broken ties with Microsoft, and is free to think independently, then he could have something interesting to add. Othewise, he's just going to slow down the process and feed back inside information back to Microsoft so that they can cha

Re:

[syphax]

The group in question is a working group charged with [patrickmur...sition.org] "helping Deval and Tim form a comprehensive agenda for the administration."

More info here [bluemassgroup.com]:

"BOSTON - Wednesday November 22, 2006 - Governor-elect Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor-elect Tim Murray announced today the creation of 15 Transition Committee issues working groups that will help shape the new administration's policy agenda as it prepares to take office on Jan. 4, 2007.

Continuing in their grassroots outreach, Patrick and Murray also announced

Re:

[Locutus]

Thanks and in light of this, it would seem that the MSFT employee may have been appointed to this committee to appease Microsoft. Though it looks like this appointment may have little influence outside of setting discussion topics and language of such, they still have more of a voice than a voice in the crowd.

I wonder, has he been appointed specifically because of his previous involvement, or did Microsoft ask for this appointment?

And remember, these committees will not be meeting in public when they define

Re:Hold Your Enemies Closer...

[RAMMS+EIN]

``But there are software companies with deeper MA roots...''

You mean, you'd rather have Symbolics [symbolics.com] on the board?

For those who don't know: Symbolics was a spin-off of MIT that made Lisp machines. They had a fairly aggressive policy on intellectual property, which basically drained brains and knowledge away from MIT and their competitor LMI, another MIT spin-off that made Lisp machines. This is what motivated Richard Stallman to start GNU (after furiously working at LMI to compete with Symbolics).

Eventually, LMI went under, and Symbolics is only officially still alive. The Lisp machine IP has been a big mess for years, most of it basically lost, because no-one is in a position to remove the intellectual property restrictions. However, recently some source code for one of the old Lisp machines has been released by MIT, bringing back some life.

Re:

[syphax]

So that's what killed Lisp mindshare (?).

No, I wasn't thinking of that one per se. Gee, I had forgotten all about the FSF (Boston based) in this context.

Though, for that matter, I would not want to see RMS in the working group- his people skills could use a little, uh, refinement.

Re:

[RAMMS+EIN]

``So that's what killed Lisp mindshare (?).''

Well, I wasn't there, so I can only give my uninformed opinion, but I think it was one of many factors. Lisp had also become very much wed to AI, and when the AI winter set in, Lisp froze with it. Also, Lisp machines were hideously expensive, so they were killed in the same micro revolution that killed all the other Real computers.

Interestingly, Lisp still has a hard core of followers (some of which are the dreaded Smug Lisp Weenies), and is still being used in s

Will It really help all that much?

[CastrTroy]

I don't know if having the world settle on one single file format will help much. I mean, for the web, we have HTML+CSS, but it seems like Microsoft has some "bugs" in their implementation, and since IE is the most popular browser, we're all forced to make webpages that adhere to the MS way of doing things. I imagine the same thing might happen, if ODF was mandated as the standard. MS would make a bug-ridden ODF reader/writer for MSWord, which would still be what most people would use, because that's what they're familiar with, and we'd be stuck in the same boat as we are with HTML. If you didn't use MS Word, then you would end up having a document that didn't look quite the way it's supposed to.

Pessimism

[Mateo_LeFou]

This seems kinda like (warning: analogy) a filmmaker in the 90s wanting to get distribution and saying "I have to adhere to Blockbuster's way of doing things..." It's true for a time, but because that way of doing things is inefficient, it will get competed out of existence by a model that works better.

I think e.g. when China and/or India standardize on a Redmond-free set of office applications, they're going to be feeding amazing innovations into the FOSS pool.

Re:

[cptgrudge]

when China and/or India standardize on a Redmond-free set of office applications, they're going to be feeding amazing innovations into the FOSS pool.

Just be sure that we have a good base of translators for documentation and web site homes to get involved. I imagine that most peoples' Hindi and Standard Mandarin is pretty rusty. There could be a fantastic open source tool that you'd use now, but you'll never find it because Google won't find the site relevant in a search in your native language.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

"I imagine that most peoples' Hindi and Standard Mandarin is pretty rusty"

Define 'most'...

http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html [krysstal.com] ...seems to me that "most people's English is pretty rusty" would be *twice as correct as your statement about Mandarin, and about the same as Hindi.

Re:

[brunascle]

well, we could start taking a guerilla approach, and produce strictly-standards-compliant content, regards of how it functions in MS products.

for example, use XHTML rather than HTML, and have your website use the application/xhtml+xml content type. when your customer complains that your website is broken, explain to them that the bug is with their browser.

yeah, it probably wont work, but it's certainly worth a shot. and it will bring more mainstream attention to the issue.

It'll work fine

[Mateo_LeFou]

..as per my above post, this idea that "everyone" uses (and will continue to use) Microsoft's standards-flouting technology is a little Americentric.

Here's hoping that WGA and other attempts to stop pirating of Windows succeeds! The result would be about a billion migrations to FOSS.

Re:

[Directrix1]

They already have that buggy implementation.

Re:

[nine-times]

Yeah, and why have laws at all, when people are just going to break them? Why take showers when I'm just going to get dirty again?

I agree that there's no need for everyone to use the same file format, but it'll be good if we can all use open standards. Microsoft is coming more in line with HTML and CSS as time goes on, partially because people have recognized that their implementation is the "broken" one. It's not perfect yet, and Microsoft hasn't always been cooperative, but don't surrender before the

Re:

[radtea]

MS would make a bug-ridden ODF reader/writer for MSWord, which would still be what most people would use, because that's what they're familiar with, and we'd be stuck in the same boat as we are with HTML.

The difference is huge: money.

People use IE because it's "free" and pre-installed, not because it's good.

People use Word because it's "the standard", but they (or their IT department) have to pay serious coin to use it. So if ODF becomes the HTML of word processing, MS will have two options: support it,

Re:

[RAMMS+EIN]

While you make a good point, I think the more important issue is the world of difference that is between:

having important documents stored in a proprietary format that only one vendor implements half-properly, changes at the whim of that vendor (breaking existing documents), is tied to one application, tied to one platform, and may be completely undocumented at some point down the line

and

having important documents stored in an open format that anyone can freely implement, won't change at the whim of a singl

Re:

[MeNeXT]

Code HTML to standards adjust for IE if need be. Pages have a longer lifespan as well as future compatibility with Wii, PS3, and other web appliances. While Microsoft may have more desktops their percent of IE users will continue to diminish in the future.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Unfortunately, some of use have websites directed at customers who won't go for the "Blame MS" approach. Some people just want it to look right. They don't want to switch browsers, and they don't want to have to do anything to resolve the problem. If the website doesn't look right on their browser, then it is the fault of the person who designed said website. This may not be completely right, since it is MS's fault, but that's not the way most people think.

From my perspective...

[zappepcs]

its hard to imagine what those people were thinking when they said (in various ways) that the MS - Novell arrangement is a good thing, or will be good for Linux. Obviously, the political machinations of MS are still working overtime to defeat anything, group, or person that will stand in the way of MS domination of computing.

Can anyone explain how this makes MS look good?

Not Automatically bad

[ObiWanStevobi]

If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented along with third party experts (which were also appointed). But alas, given the state of US governance, he's likely just there to funnel money to the right people in order to get his way.

Re:

[Rob T Firefly]

What constitutes a "reasonable arguement" whenm all you have to do to sway politicians to your side is the right combination of campaign contributions and technobabble?

If I presented your average mayor with some stereo manuals, flowcharts of how bees make honey, and some maps of galactic background radiation, while telling him in my best Ben Stein voice that it'd be best for his constituants if he rerouted engine plasma through the bussard ramscoops to generate a static warp shell which will refill the bli

Wrong decision-making procedure

[l2718]

If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented ...

I think this kind of thinking exemplifies a fundamental problem with the way decisions are made in the US. Certainly all sides should be heard -- but they should not be represented in the actual decision-making. Public employees who make decisions should report to only one boss -- the people -- and should know the technical business and

Re:

[Hijacked Public]

I also imagine a world where rainbow colored ponies with bows in their manes give free rides to little children. A dutiful civil servant peers from his ever clean office window and smiles at the passing ponies before returning to his task of making the world an even better place than anyone could ever have imagined by trying to outdo his office-neighbor as measured by the purity of his altruism.

As opposed to the independence of an...

[Assmasher]

...ODF advocate? Seriously, do you really think you can find an unbiased IT aware technologist? Especially considering that this was posted on Slashdot? LOL. Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF, I'd be shocked to find one that wasn't aware of both of them. If you did, I'd suggest he's not up to the job in general. ;)

Independent opinion vs. paid shill

[mrchaotica]

I think you're confused: biased doesn't mean "I like [foo] technology better;" biased means "[foo]corp paid me to like [foo] technology better." There's a key difference there. Can you spot it?

Re:

[Assmasher]

Are you intentionally avoiding my point? The poing, again, is that there ARE NO INDEPENDENT OPINIONS either here or in that group of people listed by MA to head the TAG. Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it. Think anyone on that list is any more independent than anyone else? Hell, the former Microsoft guy knows that he'll be scrutinized very closely by the ODF zealots and probably end up being lambasted by an

Re:

[Assmasher]

LOL, *point (not poing), sorry 'bout that.

Re:

[metamatic]

What exactly do you think an "independent opinion" is? It sounds to me like you define it to be a thing that cannot exist, in which case your "point" is totally vacuous.

Re:

[Assmasher]

Not at all, you're confusing the independent opinion of a regular individual with the concept of an indepedent opinion being held by a member of that technology group. You're also making tons of suppositions regarding the ex-employee of Microsoft who, by the admission of the article's author, isn't even known to be a lobbyist against the ODF, the author suspects that he was. BTW, the guy's position at Microsoft was in PR, ergo, he says whatever he is told to say in order to receive his paycheck. Do you t

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Think anyone on this website has an independent opinion? Not likely, the majority of people here are anti-Microsoft and you know it.

But are they being paid by Microsoft's competitors? If not, then the opinion counts as independent. That's my point!

Re:

[Assmasher]

It's not independent, it's an aggregate feeling of superiority engendered in the slashdot community as a whole where it is expected that you're anti-Microsoft or you're not here. Merely being here suggests a likely proclivity towards bashing Microsoft (it used to be worse here.) I come off as some kind of Microsoft apologist, when 80% of my career is *nix based and Java, because I believe in being objective. Do you think that article was objective?

Re:

[Trelane]

Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF

That may well be, but if you're going to argue that having an opinion vs work to actively promote is on the same continent, you're being rather foolish.

Re:

[Assmasher]

No offense but you're being a bit naive yourself, the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf (not to be confused with lobbying as a 3rd party) as part of his job while employeed by Microsoft. You seem to assume that ex-employees from Microsoft show some sort of retro-loyalty. He was a PR guy for Microsoft, who is now part of the MA government (his link to the MA government is from his pre-M$ days), and he's seen as disloyal.

Did any of you bother to check and see whet

Re:

[Trelane]

the guy is an EX-employee, who is *supposed* to have spoken on Microsoft's behalf

No, according to The Friendly Article,

Brian Burke, the Microsoft Regional Director for Public Affairs,

t is my understanding that it was Burke who led the lobbying effort on Beacon Hill against ODF, and also urged legislators to introduce the amendment intended to take away much of the ITD's planning power generally, and as regards standards specifically, and hand it to a task force made up of political appointees.

Furth [cio.com]

Re:

[professionalfurryele]

I think you are confusing the issue. You appear to believe that there are two sides to every story. In this case, there is one side to the story. This is like inviting creationists to a debate about evolution. The right decision is already widely known, the question is how to implement it. The fact this technological dinosaur has been invited along to the party is disturbing indeed. He has nothing useful to contribute.

Re:

[Assmasher]

No, I would suggest that you are reacting like a traditional slashdot reader and instantly ASSuming everything based upon an article by an author who, in the article if you've read it, admits that he doesn't actually know if this guy lobbied against the ODF. The guy is a, now, ex-employee of Micrsoft where he was in PR. He isn't an evangelist, he isn't a technologist with a personal interest in defeating the ODF, he's a guy who was involved with helping MA in the Clinton days and has now gone there. This

Re:

[burnin1965]

Either a technology savvy/aware person would be pro MS or pro-ODF

And a key difference between the pro-MS and pro-ODF is that the pro-ODF may also be pro-MS while the pro-MS is definitely anti-ODF. ;)

There is nothing stopping Microsoft from supporting ODF and the ODF standard is not a ploy to push Microsoft out of the market. You could be pro-ODF and still recommend Microsoft Office as the application of choice, as long as it meets the ODF requirement.

The same can't be said for the pro-MS bias because the MS

Re:

[Assmasher]

I see what you're trying to say, but the logic you used doesn't work ;).

I presume you mean that being pro-ODF doesn't make you anti-MS. It certainly does in my experience, although you're right in that it shouldn't.

Microsoft, iirc, is actually planning on standardizing an open XML based format, just not ODF.

Re:

[burnin1965]

I presume you mean that being pro-ODF doesn't make you anti-MS. It certainly does in my experience, although you're right in that it shouldn't.

Hey, its not my fault if the same rational logic that leads someone to be pro-ODF results in a realization that doing business with Microsoft only fuels future illegal business tactics so its best just to stay away.

Re:

[Assmasher]

What does that have to do with claiming that because the guy is an ex-M$ employee he's not trustworthy or reliable?

As for the decision to use ODF or not, people like yourself seem to not understand how the free-market works. Microsoft is a PUBLIC COMPANY. Public companies have one primary task, to enrich their shareholders. That's why pensioners, mutual funds, school systems, city governments, et al., invest in them. Arguing that Microsoft should do something that endangers their company bedrock is "not

Re:

[Assmasher]

Of course it would endanger the primary source of income for Microsoft. I can't believe you actually believe that there is zero risk to Microsoft's office division by making it possible for Linux/Windows hybrid business environments work better together, LOL. While I'd like that personally, if I was a Microsoft shareholder, I sure as hell would not.

By a Democrat, no less!

[DoofusOfDeath]

It's interesting that this appointment was made by a Democrat. After 6 years of the Bush/Republicans catastrophe, it's tempting to thing that the Democrats are going to side with the little guy, unlike the business-whoring Republicans. This appointment should remind us that BOTH parties are, effectively, pro-(insert rich lobbyist name here).

Re:

[syphax]

Democrats aren't often on the Free side of things. Think Hollywood- it has many liberals who think their livelihoods depend on DRM.

That said, I have a lot of hope for the Deval administration. My wife and I actively supported his candidacy from early on; he's one of those rare leaders who is actually inpsiring. That said, I am a little worried about his ability to follow through as an effective administrator. We will see.

Re:

[wytcld]

The DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (The Mickey Mouse Protection Act) were both signed in to law by president Clinton. Not exactly "little guy"-friendly legislation.

Right. Senator Leahy, who was behind Mickey Mouse (Michael Eisner, having grown up in Vermont, has been a regular Leahy contributor for years), is also the senator who is the most concerned about the loss of habeas corpus and the civil liberties infringements in the "Patriot" Act. So while he's centrally concerned with the l

wait and wait

[mugnyte]

  The best strategy here is not to deliver a crippled ODF, or one with optional "licensing tags" built in, or even a "binary format option" that is defined by an existing member (MS).

  No, the strategy is simply not to deliver. Stall. The longer ODF is not standardized by this group, the more things can slip out of focus among product deliveries. Not a new strategy, and I don't expect to hear much about this for some time.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

WE MUST KEEP FIGHTING...

[Ingolfke]

because if we stop and Microsoft wins then Microsoft wins and if we don't keep up the fighting and rhetoric and this thing actually gets under way... well Microsoft wins too because if we've learned one thing from these big government open source projects it's that they all fail in two or three years anyway.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer..

[Lensman]

The way this reads to me is that this is only an "Advisory" council. So they may not have the actual power to implement anything, and the MS lobbyist is only one voice. Hopefully reasonable decisions can still be reached.

Do something about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting on Slashdot will NOT make an iota of a difference. That much is just about guranteed.

Contacting Mr. Patrick (no email address available; but you can fax his campaign at [phone] ) WILL make a difference.

Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.

"Why do you hate microsoft ?" they ask ...

[unity100]

"Are you a linux junkie ?" they ask ...

YES goddammit !

And it is because of CRAP like these microsoft pulls off.

Suckers

[J05H]

Messychusetts has to many laws. High tax burden, overregulation, hostile business climate. Oh, yeah, and MANDATORY health insurance - you will be fined if you refuse to pay up, even if you're perfectly healthy. No wonder the population shrank 4 out of the past 5 years. I moved to Rhode Island from Boston 3 years ago and have loved almost every minute of it.

Deval Patrick might have some really good stuff going for him, but he's also doing some really dumb things like putting the fox in charge of the IT hen h

MS Office Support on ODF

[Petrushka]

Just out of interest, in the last month or two Microsoft has actually put a note about OpenDocument support into their Office support pages [microsoft.com]. Notice how they insist on identifying it solely with a specific product (OpenOffice.org, whose name they get wrong). Their comments about why ODF is crap and MSXML is sweetness and light are also pretty ... partial, which isn't really surprising I suppose. More intriguing to me is how they basically say the whole debate is grandstanding by Sun (and not, say, something to do with public interest).

Why is Microsoft offering a new standard, rather than simply supporting the file format for the Open Office product (sometimes called ODF)?

The OpenDocument format would not meet requirements for backward compatibility, for forward compatibility, or for performance, that millions of Microsoft customers tell us that they require.

Sun submitted the OpenOffice formats to a small committee in the OASIS organization. The record shows that there were almost no material changes to the OpenOffice specification from the time it was submitted to the time it was approved by the working group at OASIS. Sun timed the release of the OpenDocument standard in conjunction with the OpenOffice 2.0 release. The OASIS committee did not focus on the requirements, constraints, and experiences of Microsoft customers.

The Microsoft OpenXML formats have had a number of unique design requirements, including the following:

• Backward compatibility with billions of documents produced over decades.
• Intrinsic support for integrating customer-defined XML data. This enables new levels of innovation as documents generate and transport information in unique XML styles not defined by Microsoft or the document standard, but defined by the business processes of an organization.
• High performance. The Microsoft OpenXML formats put a high priority on the speed of opening, closing, and working with documents, to roughly reflect or improve upon the performance of the past binary formats, rather than degrade the performance due to parsing XML.
• Robust Testing. The OpenXML formats for Microsoft Word and Excel have been part of Office 2003 and have undergone extensive real-world testing and usage, by customers and developers.

In conclusion, the formats are significantly different, with different design points and strengths.

Public service

[remmelt]

If you want opinions and or marketing speak, you don't have to appoint a known partisan member to your committee. All the members are supposed to be independent, right? There aren't any abiword, openoffice, wordperfect, notepad, vi or emacs shilling members on that board now are there? What is that guy doing there?

accurate headline ..

[rs232]

"This one makes it seem like there is one tech advisor to MA, and that they're an MS Lobbyist. What we actually find out by reading the rest"

The headline is completely and fully accurate. As you pointed out, the rest of the article fills in the details. But even one anti ODF lobbyist on the group is bad.

was Misleading Headline (Score:1)

Re:

[killjoe]

He doesn't belong on the board. Not only is he an MS lobbyist he is also an MS employee. He is unable to make any rational choices or decisions and will automatically vote for anything MS and anything anti-oss. Why even bother putting somebody on the board when you already know how they are going to vote on every issue.