xml-dev - RE: Who will maintain SAX?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I'm not complaining.  I've had to do the benign 
dictator thing and there is a point at which 
it is effective.  Then there is a point at 
which changes have greater impact and it 
becomes committee work.  Typically that is when 
changes affect a lot more people than the 
original developers. 

The questions are what rate of change is 
expected and will the vendors who must support them 
accept the benign dictator or would they 
prefer a committee?  We all bitched about 
W3C closing the doors to open lists, me 
included.  That is why inquiring into 
the regs from each of the proposed receivers 
is high on the request list.  

So far, I don't see anyone except OASIS 
asking for the responsibility.   If the core 
is that stable, and you don't expect changes, 
why does it need a maintainer, dictator or 
otherwise?  If it needs one, what requirements 
must they meet?  Is maintaining SAX a resource  
consuming job?  If it is, who has the resources 
and how are they replenished?  The key is 
predictability once any spec is fielded.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

It's not clear to me that handing it over to a vendor consortium is likely
to avoid the PAS issue.  You complain about the benevolent dictatorship
model with regard to individuals, yet appear to have blind faith in
institutions.  I'd argue that it depends on the institution just as much as
it depends on the individual - and I'd far rather have a genuinely
benevolent individual (tough to find) than a committee-ridden pay-to-play
institution.