Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
Wow, just found this link if the BoD are only just starting to get
involved with this
Personally i suspect that they were the ones that originally made
several of us aware of this whole proposal so i suspect they ARE "on
the case".  In my previous post i let my own personal fears get the
better of me.  Sorry for that!

Also this link settled me down a bit
So normal users, like me, CAN be involved in some of the next stages.
It's not necessarily all going to be over-ruled by MS 'experts' who
are probably already carefully placed or by unwittingly dedicated or
committed MS people.

Ok, so it seems to have moved on quite a bit.  The next phase seems to
be closed already!  There seems to have been a next round of comments
or maybe summary points posted already;
click on the "Responses" tab about half-way down the page. The only 3
that worry me so far are
1.  p1  Focus on "get the job done", not "how it's done".
2.  p3  Standardisation mandate
3.  p3  ODF

1.  as per the title.  I'm not sure exactly what is being said here.
Hopefully it's just saying that things in the future should not depend
on how things have been done in the past.
2.  is about macros, specifically demanding a standard be set for them
too (as well as for the document formats).  I think this needs to be
as a separate proposal because if they attempt to bolt-it-on to this
one then it could cause huge delays or even scuper the whole proposal.
 Also it looks like LO, AOO, etc can choose between different
languages for macros while certain other programs cannot.  At the
moment the viability of this whole proposal seems to depend on the
fact that MS Office has finally managed to implement ODF 1.2, just
like everyone else has managed for years.
3.  "Without greater public awareness though, it will be seen as
something that is inaccessible to many due the ubiquity of specific
proprietary products and devices."  I'm not sure about the devices
aspect.  It might be aimed at the CSV component of the proposal but i
worry that it might be turned into an excuse for "needing" to accept
xls or even xlsX from systems such as financial reports/forecasting
and/or weather prediction.

Anyway that is 3 dubious statements out of around 20 or so and even
then they seem mostly pro-ODF.

Another similar proposal seems to be going through at around the same time
This seems to focus more on online formats such as html 4.01 and 5 and
on 'the' uneditable format (Pdf) but comments have so far seemed to
focus on suggesting using OpenSource tools and 1 mentioned ODF for

Regards from
Tom :)

On 4 March 2014 12:11, Tom Davies <> wrote:
Hi :)
What worries me now is that the next stage of the process appears to
be that after seeking thoughts from the general populace they then put
it through a panel of 'experts'.  Who chooses these experts and on
what basis?  (that was a rhetorical question)  So, now i can see why
MS made so little effort to post comments in this stage of the
process.  From the Uk Gov's website

How we select standards
Through the Standards Hub anyone can get involved in the process of
prioritising and helping us to select open standards for government
There are five groups of people involved in selecting and implementing
open standards:

Government technology officials
Challenge owners
Standards panels
Open Standards Board

There are also five phases in our approach:

How likely is it that any of the "Government technology officials" are
committed to MS?  Are any from Redhat, Canonical, FSF, TDF, openSuSE
or anywhere else not completed committed to MS?  There doesn't seem to
be a list of them anywhere nor a list of the criteria that got them
selected in the first place.  Similarly with the "Challenge Owners",
"Standards Panels" (are these selected from among people working on
ISO standards?) and the "Open Standard Board".  For this last group we
finally get a list of names and some minimal disclosure.

Open Standards Board - members and biographies

The Board members are:

Liam Maxwell, Government Digital Service (Chair)
John Atherton, Surevine
Alex Brown, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd
Adam Cooper, Bolton University
Matthew Dovey, Jisc
Paul Downey, Government Digital Service
Lee Edwards, London Borough of Redbridge
Tim Kelsey, NHS England
John Sheridan, The National Archives
Jeni Tennison, Open Data Institute
Chris Ulliott, CESG

Without even looking up any of these i can see some that raise alarm.
NHS England is allegedly deeply committed to Microsoft, according to
the comments, having just signed a huge contract with them
(allegedly).  So this person could well even be an employee of MS.
The "Open Data Institute" sounds good but could easily be like the
sort of smoke-screen used in "office open XML".  Also i'm concerned
that the final board there wont even see the original comments and
press releases from the "Users".  If they do there have been 3 layers
of 'experts' groups able to undermine or twist anything posted in this
initial stage.

I'm not sure who to write to about my concerns with the process.  Is
the BoD "on the case" with any of this or does it just stop with the
press release and just a vague hope that it will all magically work
out well?
Regards from
Tom :)

On 4 March 2014 11:41, Tom Davies <> wrote:
Hi :)
Thanks Dr Som :)   I wish i had realised i could edit my own posts
earlier so that when i cringed at some of my own grammar i could have
fixed it on the spot.  Also it might have been good to proof-read
others and maybe get others to proof-read mine.  My one that appeared
just after the official TDF one would have been better elsewhere.  As
it is it's probably going to suffer from "too long; didn't read" and
it repeats some of the things already said much better in the official
post.  On the other hand it does mean all the posts look quite fresh
and lively rather than over-worked.
Thanks and regards from
Tom :)

On 3 March 2014 04:28, som <> wrote:

I can't believe i hadn't said that earlier!!  It was a great "press
release" :))

totally agree

A few comments
pointed out that Google-docs doesn't use ODF.  However Google
themselves posted there own statement saying that they support this
proposal to use ODF.

actually that is partial truth and not the whole truth. users were right, google does not 
support ODF totally. gmail has a very nice feature - when an email has an attachment, you could 
simply click on it and a preview will be open. you could go through the preview and decide if 
you want to download it or not. this preview feature is supported for ".docx",".xlsx", .doc. 
.pdf but not for ".odt,.ods". so from this you could come to a conclusion that google does not 
support ODFs.
however, if you save the file into google drive and then try to convert it, it is possible to 
do so even with ODFs. so, google drive does support ODF.

as i was saying, both were partially correct.

Hopefully other governments will be able to see that the attempt was
made and that through failure ensured that the Uk continues to pay far
more than any other European Government on IT and has the lowest
performance as a result.  Meanwhile other governments that HAVE
ALREADY broken free or that DO break freak free continue to find huge
cost-savings, plummeting costs and rapidly as a result.

amen to that!



To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.