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

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

"Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com> writes:

> Ken,
> 
> > > 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).
> 
> You are evading the question.

I am not now nor have I ever tried to evade a question.  If my
responses don't appear to clearly address the question, I definitely
urge anyone to take me to task on it and make me clarify.

> Wasn't RSS already something, didn't it have users and
> agrregators. So ...
> 
> RSS existed and was being used by lots of folk
> Group A(including some of the RSS originators) wanted to make RSS
> extensible etc.
> Group B (including rest of the original group) wanted status quo
> 
> This is a fork by Group A why should Group B change the name of
> something that existed. How do you defend this?  If the RSS-DEV WG
> is so concerned about the RSS brand why are you tarnishing it with
> this name grab?

If Group B is not planning any future revisions (status quo), then
there's a clear version path, no name grab, no requirements to
upgrade, nothing.  RSS 0.91 won't change and RSS with RDF+NS is
available as a new version of the same thing, and backwards compatible
(tested) with all aggregators and clients.  That was the intent, if
you read back, of why everyone is told to make a *proposal* for
improving RSS.

However, it continues that Group B wants to improve RSS (not status
quo, not keep it unchanged) in a different way from Group A, so we are
right back where we were in June (and earlier), two branches of the
same thing, with equally valid reasons for keeping the name RSS.

A point to make very clear: both groups agree on what RSS *is*,
functionally, they are even in basic agreement on how new
functionality should be achieved: new tags.  The technical
disagreement is over *how* that should be accomplished and how much
new functionality is expected over the next few iterations.  The
political disagreement comes from who get's to make the technical
decision, whether or not the technical decision is within the spirit
of RSS, functionally, and who gets to keep the name or how it's
shared.  Both factions have valid reasons and both are still large
groups.

Another point to consider: We are all closer to the same thing than
some would have everyone believe.  You can take two basic RSS files
from both groups, put them side by side, and ask an uninvolved person
how big a difference they see.  They will point out the syntax
differences, obviously, but would they have any difficulty copying
either of them for their own site?  No.

  -- Ken