[At-Large] Transcription of December ALAC Teleconference posted

[Evan Leibovitch]

Jean Armour Polly wrote:
> It literally takes one more second to "print" a Word file to pdf. (Is that what you are looking for, Thomas?)
PDFs are good (and reasonably standardized) for documents that are not
meant to be re-edited (such as meeting minutes). Alternatively if the
desire is for a format that could also be re-edited, OpenDocument (the
native format of OpenOffice and available for Word as a plugin) is an
ISO standard that is increasing in international adoption.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/04/Open-Document-Format-gained-momentum_1.html

HTML is also OK; while it lacks lacks many of the advanced presentation
features of MS Office and OpenDocument, we _are_ after all talking about
simple things like meeting minutes. On the other hand, if there is to be
a wider policy about using an open format it should be something more
flexible than HTML.

Without claiming to speak for anyone else, Nick, I think there is
increasing sensitivity in the choice of file formats that are closed and
whose use is subject to the whim of a single vendor. This threat is not
just theoretical; here's just the latest indication of how that whim is
being abused:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9055138
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9055618

(I wonder why the IP types aren't squaking even louder about this. If
being denied access to your own files isn't a breach of creators'
rights, what is?)

Having said all that, I agree that "wait for more staff" appears to be
an insufficient reason to reject a suggestion that requires no more than
a few more button presses.

- Evan