"closed groups" (was RE: Blueberry is not "closed")

[Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>]

> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]

<snip/>

> <notaBene>I'm not in favor of closed groups that 
> go off and plan the future in secret.  Never have 
> been, but the W3C is the owner 
> of XML, does as it thinks, and in the case of a 
> major release version, that group would be a 
> consideration.

This is off-topic, but it's interesting that the XML Protocol WG has broken
the mold and decided to do its work in public. Anyone can subscribe to the
xml-dist-app list and follow the work of the WG and even provide comments
(that from what I've seen, are pretty consistently listened to and given
some level of consideration). I wonder if this is an experiment never to be
repeated, or a harbinger of how future work at the W3C will proceed.

My employer is a member of the W3C, so if I want to find out what's being
said and decided in a WG, I can manage to do so. Nonetheless, I think a more
open and public process would be healthy and I applaud the XML Protocol WG
for their approach (in spite of the occasional off-topic noise that
inevitably ends up on the mailing list). I know that won't satisfy those who
distrust private consortiums vs. government-backed standards bodies, but it
could give a broader voice to those who might otherwise not practically have
any avenue for contributing to the process.