[ODFPlugtest] Chatham House Rule

[jos at vandenoever.info]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:21:11 +0100, Michiel Leenaars <michiel at nlnet.nl>
wrote:
> you are right. I had not seen that OSOR quote yet, I discussed the
> plugfest in the context of a question from the journalist who
> interviewed me about Microsoft having a disadvantage of being the only
> implementation present at the plugfest that does not have ODF as its
> default format.
Abiword does not have ODF as native format but was not present. Google was
present, but Google Docs does not have ODF as default (database in their
case since it's hard to talk about native format when docs are stored on a
remote computer, once should say html+js is the native format in the case
of such implementations).

> The focus of the ODF plugfest - as with any plugfest - should be on
> getting maximum interoperability across all vendors, and I think
> confidentiality does have an important role. There are vendors that fear
> publicity while their implementation is still maturing - and we should
> not hinder their participation in the plugfests. It is a positive,
> non-discriminatory event where all are treated equal - clearly a step
> towards maturity from the blog wars of recent years. Any comparison of
> implementations should happen outside of the context of the plugfest, as
> it hinders honest debate and admission of vulnerability; this is one of
> the most valuable things I find at the plugfest, for people to regularly
> discuss interpretation and implementation issues and best practises
> across company borders.
> 
> Thank you for pointing that out, and I'm sure at the next plugfest we
> will all abide with the Chatham House rules.

Personally, I think these rules create a complex situation of that requires
people to keep a duality in place about what can be said and what not and
can you infer things I cannot say from things I am allowed to say. Also,
since many bugtrackers are public, Chatham rules would stop bugs from being
allowed to be reported.

Being cooperative is an important goal and 'Chatham rules' serves as a
synonym for 'be constructive' and I appreciate it as such. Strictly
following the rules seems impractical though. In my mind, what is more
important is that the standardization process allows a low threshold for
new implementors.

Cheers,
Jos