Re: [syndication] New poll for syndication

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

Dan, this idea seems to have been rejected by the various communities.

I just reviewed the survey/poll results from last week.

1. On the RSS-DEV poll [1], 21 people said Yes, 16 people said Perhaps, 10
said No, and 2 abstained.

2. On reallySimpleSyndication [2], 16 said Yes, 3 said No.

3. On UserLand [3], 22 said Yes, 9 said No.

They were voting on the proposed roadmap I posted [4], which clearly says
that the new specs (currently named RSS 0.92 and RSS 1.0) are renamed and
that RSS is left frozen at 0.91, with 0.90 deprecated.

I really tried to do it Rael's way, or whoever's (I know no one is
responsible, maybe that's the problem) -- we asked the communities, and they
responded, in greater numbers than they ever have responded to a poll.

Anyway, I've got a sense that no matter what polls we run, no matter how the
question is asked, the mess is never going to get sorted out. What's the
point of continuing to put energy into this?

Dave

[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=687541
[2]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reallySimpleSyndication/surveys?id=10073724
[3]
http://backend.userland.com/surveys/results/daveatsignuserland.com/approveRs
sRoadmap (replace "atsign" with the at-sign, shift-2 on many keyboards)
[4] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/1669


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] New poll for syndication


>
> this survey just appeared in my mailbox. i think it misses out the most
> important option: reuniting RSS under a broad pluralist banner. So...
>
> (d) "I have some other opinion":
> We should start working together again, under the broad and well know
> banner of "RSS".  DTDs, namespaces, RDF,
> XHTML, XSLT and all that are dull geeky things that we can largely hide
> from users of (the various flavours of) RSS. Just as content producers
> currently manage to survive in a world where there are numerous flavours
> of HTML, of image formats (JPEG, PNG, GIF, ...), etc., they'll get by in
> a world with various off-the-shelf RSS flavours too. But they'l find it
> a lot easier if we don't give them contrary names and abandon any
> attempts to collaborate on a shared story.
>
> danbri
>
> On 2 Jun 2001 syndication@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
> > syndication group:
> >
> > RSS has a long and varied history; noone
> > (except possibly Netscape,
> > who don't seem to care) can claim to
> > 'own' the name. There are Two
> > current, somewhat separate RSS formats;
> > RSS 0.9x, based on the later
> > work from Netscape, and RSS 1.0, based
> > on the original, RSS 0.9.
> >
> > This has caused problems in the RSS
> > developer community, and is
> > perceived to cause problems in the RSS
> > user community, especially as
> > evangelization efforts try to move
> > forward. The proper course of
> > action has been the subject of much
> > debate; this poll is intended to
> > express the will of the content
> > syndication community, whether
> > developer, publisher and end user, in
> > the resolution of this issue.
> >
> > The results of this poll can only be
> > considered an expression of the
> > preferences of this mailing lists'
> > members. As such, it is not binding, but
> > it can help determine what should be done.
> >
> >
> >   o I would like to see RSS split into two efforts with completely new,
non-RSS names, while leaving RSS 0.9 and 0.91 frozen.
> >   o I would like to see the RSS efforts renamed, but keep some relation
to RSS. RSS 0.9 and 0.91 remain the same, and are frozen.
> >   o I think that the current state of affairs is acceptable.
> >   o I have some other opinion.
> >
> >
> > To vote, please visit the following web page:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/polls
> >
> > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
> > web site listed above.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>