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

["Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken MacLeod" <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
To: <syndication@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: Forking, the name game, the politics of
naming


> "Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com> writes:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > > > The real question is who is forking? That is the name change
> > > > regardless of stakeholders' prior interest.
> 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.
>
You forked Ken, why should you be telling the other group what they can or
should do? But by status quo I meant that Group B continues with RSS and
it's devlopment path, whatever they see fit. That is what a fork is right,
the existing RSS users (Group B)continue on their path, the group wanting
change (Group A) goes their way -- but picks a new name.