I'm attending the Linux Foundations' first annual Linux Collaboration Summit from the Google campus in Mountainview California today and tomorrow, and will add periodically to this post as the day goes along. 
We're set up in one of the many Google buildings in what used to be the Silicon Graphics campus. As a result of its reinhabiting someone else's space, it's not quite as opulent as you might think from the reports one hears. There are plenty of accoutrements around to make the point, though, from what appear to be communal fleets of bikes that you can take from building to building, electric scooters, and the occasional corporate Segway tootling along or plugged into a wall socket. Strangely, though, it seemed as if a malign presence was always just outside, like some horrible monster from a cold and damp northwestern state. We could feel in our bones that it did not wish Linux well.
Be that as it may, at the Linux Foundation board meeting the day before all was quite cozy – we had Kobi steak garnished with lobster tail, so I assume that Google provided us with a typical recruiting lunch. Later, our collective mob will descend on one of the Google cafeterias, to sample the sushi bar and other selections. Together with the spectacular Silicon Valley weather and the funky accommodations at the Wild Palms Hotel where many of us are staying, it makes the East Coast scene feel pretty drab in comparison because, uh, well, I guess in comparison it's pretty drab.
To begin with, it was disappointing to hear legislators complaining that taking responsibility for the long-term availability of public documents should not be their concern. In Minnesota, Don Betzold, the Democratic state senator who was the original sponsor of the
…
For those of you in the Boston area, or not too far away, there's an event that I've helped plan that I think you'd find quite worthwhile. It's even cheap, as such things go, at $20 a head for members of the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, and $40 for non members. It's titled the Open Source Summit, and will feature quite a few excellent panelists, including the following folks that I've known for quite a while and respect greatly:
- Karen Copenhaver, an open source licensing expert who's also a member of one of the GPL3 committees. Karen was formerly the General Counsel of Black Duck Software, before returning to private practice at local law firm Choate, Hall & Stewart
- Scott Peterson, the Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property, Hewlett-Packard Company / Andover, MA. Scott is an "expert's expert" on both open standards as well as open source, and the guy I call when I want the opinion of someone I can rely upon
- Bob Sutor, VP Standards & Open Source, IBM, who regular readers of this blog will know is the top guy at IBM on ODF strategy, as well as much more formidible blogger.
One of the principle topics will be the latest on GPL3 and What it All Means, which is to say what it all means up to that minute in the unfolding story, as told by quite a few folks that are very much in the middle of things, not only on the drafting side, but on the market side as well, such as (in addition to Bob Sutor):
- Larry Alston, VP of Corporate Strategy, Iona
- Don Fisher, VP of Online Services, Red Hat
- Justin Steinman, Director of Linux Marketing, Novell
We shall go on to the end,...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…
- Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940
If there was any doubt left in anyone's mind that Microsoft will do everything that it can, and wherever it must, to ensure that ODF makes the minimum inroads possible into its vastly profitable Office franchise, the news of the day should put that doubt to rest. In the continuing tit for tat battle between ODF and OOXML, Microsoft announced yesterday it's own interoperability project to bridge the gap between China's domestically developed Unified Office Format (UOF) and Microsoft's OOXML. The announcement tracks the intent of an already-existing "harmonization" committee, hosted by OASIS, that is exploring interoperability options between ODF and UOF, and also underlines Microsoft's increasing focus on the vast Chinese market.
This news is no surprise, in one sense. Microsoft has been waging a nation-by-nation battle for the hearts and minds of ISO/IEC JTC1 National Bodies, in an effort to win adoption of OOXML (now Ecma 376) as a global standard with equal status to ODF (now ISO 26300). In order to do so, it needs to offset the argument that one document format standard is not only enough, but preferable. With UOF representing a third entrant in the format race, easy translation of documents created using the competing formats would obviously be key to lessen the burden on customers. Moreover, last month, Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy called for the outright merger of UOF and ODF in a speech he delivered in Beijing – just a few days before Bill Gates arrived to keynote a Microsoft conference being held nearby.
My, my, how's anyone with a blog supposed to get his day job done this week? Bob Sutor at IBM just sent me to his writeup on Microsoft's latest release, titled (the press release, that is), "Microsoft Votes for Choice." The lead paragraph reads:
Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has voted to support the addition of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.0 to the nonexclusive American National Standards list. The vote took place as part of a process managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
That's a good thing, right? Well, yes, it is, as far as the vote goes. But when was the last time you saw a vendor issue a press release about one of the many standards votes it casts on an ongoing basis? Bob highlights the language from the press release that makes it clear that the PR motive for the release is to pave the way for the eventual submission of Ecma 376 (the Microsoft OOXML format) for similar approval:
Another new standard that the company anticipates will be approved for ANSI’s list is the recently ratified ECMA Open XML File Formats. Known in standards-body circles as ECMA-376, the new open standard is under review by ISO, with a final vote expected in late 2007 or early 2008 following a ballot vote in early September.
Rather than repeat what Bob has already concisely stated, you should read his argument that we need fewer, rather than more document formats. But I can't help noting one coincidence (?) that strikes me between the timing of this press release and the Fortune article that I wrote about yesterday.
Norway is the latest European country to move closer to mandatory government use of ODF (and PDF). According to a press release provided in translation to me by an authoritative source, Norway now joins Belgium, Finland, and France (among other nations) in moving towards a final decision to require such use. The text of the press release, as well as some of the statements made at the press conference where the announcement was made, are appended at the end of this blog post.
The Norwegian recommendation was revealed by Minister of Renewal Heidi Grande Roys, on behalf of the Cabinet-appointed Norwegian Standards Council. If adopted, it would require all government agencies and services to use these two formats, and would permit other formats (such as OOXML) to be used only in a redundant capacity. Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of OOXML by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to "promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage."
According to the press release, the recommendation will be the subject of open hearings, with opinions to be rendered to the Cabinet before August 20 this summer. The Cabinet would then make its own (and in this case binding) recommendation to the Norwegian government.
Robin Cover's XML Daily Newslink yesterday, one of my "must reads" (you can sign up for a free subscription at newsletter-subscribe@xml.coverpages.org), included a note on the formation of the Concordia Working Group by the Liberty Alliance Project (LAP). The story caught my eye for three reasons: it addresses a real problem, it's using an increasingly common approach to do so, and it's advancing the state of the art at the same time in a new and interesting way. I'd like to look at each of those reasons in greater detail.
First, let's review the real world problem: LAP is wrestling with a frustration that concerns us all: how can we take advantage of all that the Internet can offer without (a) having our privacy violated and our bank accounts emptied by the Bad Guys, while (b) not being driven crazy by endless user IDs, passwords, and other safeguards thrown up to deal with (a)? Or, as LAP more elegantly phrases it:
The vision of Liberty Alliance is to enable a networked world based on open standards where consumers, citizens, businesses and governments can more easily conduct online transactions while protecting the privacy and security of identity information. This world, where devices and identities of all kinds are linked by federation and protected by universal strong authentication, is being built today with Liberty’s open identity standards, business and deployment guidelines and best practices for managing privacy.
The second reason is also systemic, but in a different way, as this Working Group is the latest in a series of initiatives born of the realization that it's increasingly rare for single standards organizations to be able to solve real-world problems for end-users, as compared to point solutions for vendors. The reasons include that there are two many moving parts, too many different organizations involved in standardizing those parts, and too much that has to happen quickly in order to keep up with technical innovation and commercial exploitation of new technologies.
The recent announcement of a new standard for "slipperiness" reminded me not only of the seemingly infinite, and at times surprising, types of standards we find we cannot live without, but also of the linkage between language and standards.
The standard in question was developed by the Entertainment Services and Technology Association (ESTA), one of those worthy standards development organizations that may somehow have escaped your notice to date. According to the
ESTA Web site, its core mission is "Building the Business of Show Business," and in support of that quest, its Floors Working Group developed what it calls
BSR E1.34-200x, Entertainment Technology - Measuring and Specifying the Slipperiness of Floors Used in Live Performance Venues.
If one were so inclined, one might wonder whether it is more surprising that the world has existed so long without a way to measure the slipperiness of the floors of live performance venues, or that someone has now taken the time and effort to plug that remarkably small gap (odds are that your wonder may incline towards the latter). Still, as noted in the announcement, "It is axiomatic that you can't manage what you can't measure," and if you're in the Business of Building Show Business, I guess it's quite plausible that you might find yourself in need of managing the slipperiness of live performance venues as well.
As I expect you are already aware, Fortune Magazine's Roger Parloff has authored an in-depth, and extremely well written, article called