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."
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.
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.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
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.
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.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
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.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
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.
Digging deeper, it seems the shill is still an MS employee. 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?
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.
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.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...