Lists Home |
Date Index |
That could be an example of a low quality process.
One goes to organizations often precisely because
one gets an acceptable process. Even if they take
time, it may be time well worth the investment.
I note Kendall Clark's article on this topic
on XML.COM this week.
If he wanted control, he should have built a
proprietary application. Nothing compels him
to let go and claims that a market cannot be
created or sustained without submitting to the
'community' are easily refuted. It is a choice
of where one starts and what one wants to own
on the other side of the process.
From: Rich Salz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> his strategic blunder was to assume he could
> work openly without being under the protection of
> the policies of an organization that would
No. His blunder was in using imprecise language to specify something,
and then being inconsistent about the interpretation of those
ambiguities. RSS 2.0 isn't a spec or standard. It was an essay written
with a couple of weeks -- yes, less than a month -- from those who
scrambled to be heard, and mostly (like 2/3 comments accpeted) were.
It's an essay that is not open to editorial clarification.
Too bad. Often the hard part of working in the open is knowing when to
let go. Dave's inability to do so has led many reasonable people to
start from ground zero. I expect interop to be maintained.