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

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

It isn't consortia vs government:  it is consortia and 
government.  They have different sets of customers.   This 
keeps the processes and outcomes in better balance 
by insuring that outcomes aren't pulled to only one 
set of interests.   Preserve options including the 
option to abandon the W3C or ISO or any other group 
that doesn't meet the needs of your systems.  You 
are not members of a fraternity; you are customers 
to groups that provide services.  The service model
is the one that preserves options.

The XML Protocol group is led by people of experience 
who have the maturity to handle off-topic noise, who 
understand that there are always issues broader than 
the technical ones, and that in the long run, all they 
can offer is a solution that must be competitive with 
other possible solutions.  Open groups are hard but 
they engender loyalty and consensus, but more importantly, 
they value the individual contributor and enable the 
group to keep moving when any individual drops out.

The architecture group is likely to involve individuals 
whose reputations might suffer in open debates and because 
of their positions, cannot afford that risk.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@allegis.com]

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.