RE: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

Ken,


So much processual talk is getting me dizzy.


Open standards should:
 - Evolve to serve its users interests first;
 - And only than its authors (without credit ever being omitted).

That is how open standards get used.

If there is a doubt, think about this:
  If M$ makes a standard that only serves their interests...
  ...is it still open?

In the case of M$ the answer is easy, isn't it?


In the context of an open standard, users interests must take priority
and common sense should make the rest easy without much process needed.


The fact that many people want Really Simple Syndication should be 
obvious by now.


Have fun,
Paulo



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 23:37
> 
> "Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com> writes:
>
> .............
> 
> > I couldn't disagree more! I am spending my companies money on an RSS
> > implementation. I and many other non-original stakeholders have a
> > lot at stake -- money, reputations, jobs ... To say that only the
> > original stakeholders matter is upsetting and limits the adoption of
> > RSS. I thought this was an open process. The original stakeholders
> > are and always will be the founders of this movement. All credit
> > should be given to them for their efforts. I would be surprised to
> > here that *they* would want this to be a closed process. Am I
> > missing something here?
> 
> No, probably not.  I don't know.
> 
> There's no apparent process available to us to come to closure on the
> name, excepting rss-dev's process presuming that they'd be willing to
> change their name, of which I don't at all expect a 2/3's vote
> agreeing to change it wholesale.
> 
> On the other hand, I do see a possibility of a 2/3's vote for agreeing
> to a branch name if RSS without RDF+NS looks like it will move forward
> and will agree to a branch name also.
> 
> *That* result depends on how open the process is here on syndication.
> 
> I see a win-win for future development by sharing the name and doing
> anything to make it more like we're all on the same side and not
> opponents.  Ideallistically, we've never been opponents because we all
> have the same functional goal.  I don't know if this is or ever will
> be considered a win for healing the rift between the original
> stakeholders, but it's pretty clear to everybody that we need to put a
> stop to this and move on.
> 
> As I see it, the ball is in the no-RDF+NS group's court.
> 
>   -- Ken