[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:27:55 -0500
Title: RE: standards body parallel
There
is a wonderful point someone made about
the
Xanadu project in which they pointed out
that
even in hypertext systems, it is just as
important to forget as to remember.
Maintenance aside, "I lost my reputation
years
ago and haven't missed it since" as
the
lady said, so I am not bothered by
the
archival of lists.
All
the "little people" are usually asking
for is
access. When given it, they often
do a
very good job contributing. I am
amazed
we have done so much on the
newtwork and anyone can still doubt that.
But
archival, issues-resolution and cross
referencing, formal proposals, detailed specification,
this
is not work for a mail list. It is work for
an
editor. That editor has a chorus called
a
working group. I don't care for the costs but
there
are ways around them and someone has
to pay
for administration. I honestly believe
that
people support better that which they
have
had a chance to contribute to. The wiser
WG
heads know that and open up their processes
as
wide as the consortium or standards body
allows. One side effect of that is those allowed
to
participate get better at it. Really, does anyone
here
think the tech writers wouldn't help if they
had
access to the documents to edit? Nothing
is
more powerful than their urge to rewrite other
people's prose.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public
Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam
sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
Now suppose I had to worry that my emails were being
circulated on XML-DEV, which I read only when I have time, and perhaps other
mailing lists as well. I would feel like I had to keep my eyes peeled on all
relevant mailing lists to defend my opinions or make it clear that I no longer
hold them. This would not help me in doing my Working Group
work.
| 