xml-dev - RE: standards body parallel

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 03:38 PM 10/13/00 -0400, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote: 
>
> Simon St. Laurent wrote: 
> >  I'm happiest to see that developers are questioning 
> >  the wisdom of centralized models in which the big 
> >  players play key roles. 
>
> Small players can be extremely influential, due to the "meritocracy of
geeks"
> factor, which also holds sway in the W3C. Each Working Group has a lot of
> work to be done. If you do the work, you get listened to. I used to work for
> a very small company, Texcel, but I found that the concerns that I raised
> were listened to in the W3C.
>
> James Clark ... Henry Thompson... Tim Bray... SoftQuad... Lauren Wood...
>
> You simply don't need to work for a large company to be influential in the
> W3C. 


So why the vendor consortium approach?  Why the secrecy?  'Bozo fees' just
don't seem like much of an answer.

I'm delighted that these people (yourself included) have been able to wield
substantial influence, but does that explain the W3C's structure?

>
> > That may just be realpolitik, of course. 
>
> In fact, realpolitik is precisely what it is. 
>
> If you want to create a standard for HTML or the DOM, you want Microsoft and
> Netscape to support it. If either of those parties say a decision causes
them
> significant problems, that decision will generally be addressed. If it isn't
> adopted, it isn't a standard. If the major companies don't buy into it, and
> use something different, then there is no one standard. Each company may
have
> only one vote, but each company tends to believe that adoption by the
> companies that are significant in a particular market is important.


I think this level of realpolitik is reasonable, but again, it doesn't explain
the structure.  

Vendor consortia are by their very nature a means around antitrust laws.  It
seems that it might be wise, in these days of heavier antitrust
enforcement, to
make sure that these decisions are accessible without a subpoena.

>
> On the other hand, if *any* member of a Working Group finds that a decision
> causes them significant pain in real development efforts, that is taken very
> seriously, and that member tends to get a solution to their problem.


My concern here lies primarily with who's in the Working Group, and whether or
not the larger world outside can hear their pain.  I'm glad to hear that WGs
are responsive - I just can't figure out why the smoke-filled back room is so
critical to the process.  
Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books