RFC: Clearing confusion for RSS, agreement for forward motion

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

OK, I've given this some thought, I'd like everyone to keep discussing even
if there are points of disagreement. There may be holes in what I'm
proposing. So please read this carefully, give it some thought, if you see a
problem, state it. Items 1-5 are recitals, and 6-14 form a proposal. I am
not a lawyer, and did not have my lawyer review this document before posting
it.

1. I don't like the idea of "sharing" the name. While sharing is a good
thing in general, when it comes to naming things, well if they're different
they should have different names. This is the source of the confusion.

2. Mark Nottingham says that the number of 0.90 sources plus the "1.0"
sources roughly equals the number of 0.91 sources. My numbers show
otherwise, as I've posted them here and on Scripting News. Among the
actively updating channels on My.UserLand 0.91 is by far the format with the
largest installed base. So if we're going to quote numbers we must get some
agreeable way of surveying the installed base before making decisions based
on this. Or we could stop quoting numbers. (Which is I think is the
productive and forward-moving way.)

3. One thing's for sure, though, 0.91 has had the longest run of any of the
formats. It was promoted heavily, and gained wide adoption. Orphaning this
format is not a good option. Therefore, in my humble opinion, anything that
has the RSS name must be compatible with 0.91.

4. I strongly believe RSS is a Web content syndication format and nothing
more. You can see that I acted on this belief by creating a new format in
OPML, and did not try to shoehorn it into RSS. However, it seems that OPML
is in somewhat the same space as "1.0".

5. I could indeed withdraw from further discussions and work on RSS. In fact
that's part of my proposal, below. There are other people at UserLand who
can represent our interests, and in fact some of our development partners
could adequately represent our interests if a collegial atmosphere develops,
and I hope it does.

6. Now, putting on my "what's the best thing for RSS" hat, and ignoring any
difficulty that might be there for any person, company or group, I think the
best thing is to do some renamimg. Let the RSS name be used only for the
0.90 and 0.91 formats. Declare 0.90 deprecated and document 0.91, do more
tutorials, etc. Evangelize. Clear up all the confusion. Authorship credit
for 0.91 goes equally to Netscape and UserLand. A final version of the 0.91
spec is created derived from the one on backend.userland.com, and it will
contain pointers, at the end of the document, to any websites that are
created for subsequent formats that offer compatibility with 0.91. As a
gesture of goodwill it will also include a pointer to the RDF fork. This
specification will maintain a copyright notice that allows it to be copied
in whole or in part.

7. Both branches take new names. Neither format has the letters "SS" in
their name. The RSS-DEV list changes its name to reflect the new name for
the RDF-and-namespaces branch.

8. Re the "simple" branch -- if a working group is formed, it should be
comprised of users of the format, i.e. content developers, and it should
take input from tool vendors, aggregators, content management system
developers. This is an insurance that their needs are met should the simple
branch evolve. It will not be called RSS. Then what RSS is is very simple,
is no longer contested, in any way, now or in the future, it has a large
installed base, is easily documented and evangelized, there's no need for
further discussion since it's well-known what it is.

9. I will not personally participate in the evolution of either branch. This
is my exit point, personally, from RSS work. However, UserLand will
participate in some manner in the work done on the "simple" branch, and
possibly in the RDF branch. If either group asks my opinion on something, I
will offer it, but only offlist, and only if I have the time.

10. I believe there are only a few users of 0.92, while there may be many
channels, most of them are managed with Radio UserLand, and we would commit
to changing the name of the format in a subsequent release, and would
encourage others who are deploying in this format to change the name in
their implementations.

11. When we've made similar offers in the past, some have said that we
should just change the name and let the RDF people use the RSS name. That is
not acceptable. The goal is to clear up confusion in what RSS means. I make
this offer to show that we're willing to share the pain to help RSS
re-establish a clear identity.

12. Arbitration. If there are disputes about this agreement, they will be
arbitrated by a group of three content developers chosen from the
Syndication list, one to be chosen by each side and agreeable to the other,
and a third to be chosen by Mark Nottingham, the founder of the Syndication
list, and this person must also be agreeable to both sides. Decisions of the
three-person panel will be made in a timely fashion and will be final.

13. If this proposal is not accepted by the other side, its terms are not
enforceable.

14. All parties agree to put the past fully behind us. Discussion of events
that took place before agreement was reached will be off-topic on all three
mail lists.

15. A mechanism will be set up for people to endorse this proposal, and a
response is requested from the working group for the RDF fork.

Dave