> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:]
> I hope I will not start another religion war, but I think that what we
> want to achieve is more a "free" than an "open" standards organization
> (with of course "free" as in GNU's "free speech").
As well as "free to look" meaning work that is publicly accessible
during all fazes of development instead of "member only" links resulting
to "How to join us" (with fees usually forbidding individuals to join
this elite cycle of geniuses). I don't want to offend anyone and I
appreciate all the work that has been done but perhaps it's time for
"Open Standards Development" to learn a few things by observing the Open
Source movement. Examples of synergy between Open Source and Standards
is not a coincidence; however, cases where commercial vendors take
advantage of both are not a coincidence either. Most current standards
bodies are based on vendor sponsorships which inevitably causes
conflicts between interested parties; who's representing the common
user's interests in such cases?
1) No vendor interests effecting control of the development process in a
way that hurts community's interests. Vendors are supposed to serve the
public and gain something in return.
2) Direct community dependence without discriminating against
individuals or organizations.
3) Synergy with and utilization of Open Source resources.
BTW... This will need a license.
Manos
