Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Anything is possible given time and money.
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.
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.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
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.
Government is not a well-oiled machine. It's a vast expanse of bureaucracy, backroom deals, corruption, coercion and many other things. So stop treating it like one and doing that feel good song and dance about "we the people are the government" as an excuse for letting it dictate standards, regulate all over the place, etc. This is the way that government works in practice. The more you invite it into your life, the more of this sort of villainy you will invite in general.
Get impartial engineers and technicians to analyze -- *scientifically (gasp!) -- the pros and cons of the various formats.
... 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.
Oh wait
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
Contacting Mr. Patrick (no email address available; but you can fax his campaign at (617) 628-3519 ) WILL make a difference.
Speak up. Now! Or STFU and take it daily from Microsoft.
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.