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

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

"Steve Agalloco" <spagalloco@lycos.com> writes:

> I think your idea is great.  I think we all agree on the
> functionality (at least at some point we do).
> 
> So how do we go about doing it?  Proposing a neutral body that
> approves both implementations?  A group comprised of both working
> groups to agree on functionality?

I don't believe any of that is necessary.  The non-RDF+NS group is
looking for slow, incremental improvements.  I'm not suggesting that
we choose to immediately, or necessarily ever, begin sharing identical
functional improvements or release schedules.  That depends on any
healing that might happen.  I do hope that we share meanings behind
some tags (like <date> and company tags, for example).

The minimum necessary to make this work to avoid confusion is that we
use the branch names when listing their current releases, like
"Current versions: RSS Y 1.3; Z RSS 1.1.2"

> Does the non-RDF+NS group even have a working group?

I'll read that as "...even [need to] have...".

No, nor a defined process.  Somehow, though, we need a show of good
faith that we are all willing to share the name.

The show of good faith by the RDF+NS group would be a vote to adopt a
branch name if the non-RDF+NS group does the same.

I don't know, and can't speak to, what a show of good faith might be
on the part of the non-RDF+NS group.  A non-RDF+NS RSS 1.0 spec with a
branch name on it would clearly do it.  If a working group is formed,
shows progress towards a spec, and also votes to adopt a branch name
if the RDF+NS group does the same, that would be a show of good faith.

The timing of choosing a branch name is not critical, either.  A show
of good faith on the part of the RDF+NS group would easily extend
until the non-RDF+NS group released a spec or made some other show of
good faith.  As it is at this point, both groups are going forward
with the name "RSS" so we lose nothing in the wait.

It would be nice to hear from a few more people who think this would
be an acceptable proposal.

  -- Ken