RE: [syndication] Re: Forking, the name game, the politics of naming

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

That is the thing closer to a reasonable compromise that you come 
up with.
=:o)

Have fun,
Paulo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 15:22
> 
> 
> "Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com> writes:
> 
> > The real question is who is forking? That is the name change
> > regardless of stakeholders' prior interest.
> 
> Going back prior to 8/14 it's clear that there was large groups
> (regardless of how large) on both sides of the technical direction
> decision.
> 
> If one can play "shouldas", what should of happened at that time is
> that both sides forked (or branched).
> 
> Since we can't play "shouldas", and can't correct the mistakes made on
> both sides during and after the snafu, we can only choose to resolve
> them now.
> 
> One suggestion on the table is that we call them both branches.
> Something like "RSS, Basic" for the branch building up from RSS0.91,
> and "RSS, Extended" for the branch building on RDF+NS.
> 
> How about another poll?  If the poll is on [syndication], it would
> read like below, if on [rss-dev], the sense would be reversed.
> 
>   If this would resolve the naming issue, and the RDF+NS group were
>   willing to use a name like "RSS, Extended" for their format, I would
>   be willing to use a name like "RSS, Basic" for our format.
> 
>     * Yes
>     * No
>     * I abstain.
> 
>   -- Ken
> 
> 
>