Welcome!

Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ''সৌমোyasch'' 

Re: the "rushing" comment ODF:

Personally I think the entire discussion of formulas is out of place in the Standardization section.  See the entry on Microsoft Office Open XML for an example of what is a better writeup, IMHO.  Keep the Standardization section to the basics of what, when and where, the type of summary info that should be upfront and easily found in an encylopedia entry.  Put the debates or other side issues in their own section.

Also, a comment by a member of OASIS does not necessarily reflect OASIS policy or even the majority view of the ODF TC.  It is just one person's opinions at one point in time.  The use of the word "rushed" needs to be subtantiated, otherwise it is merely opinion.  Since I can also point to opinions on the web that say that ODF was not rushed, I think we'll both need to acknowledge that this is a debatable point, and either both sides of the argument should be presented, or an unadorned statement of the facts presented.

If we want to state the facts, we could mentioned when the ODF specification started standardization (December 2002), when comments on the lack of spreadsheet formulas were brought up (February 2005) and when the OASIS standard was issued (May 2005).  Was this a sign of rushing?  Or was it merely the case that it was too late in the ODF 1.0 process to take on this additional work?  It is certainly possible for the later to be true without the former.  2+ years for a standard is not typically evidence of rushing.

In any case, my vote would be to move this item to its own section, or perhaps to Standard office document formats debate.

Regards,