Re: [syndication] Re: [OT] RSS History

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com> writes:

> Dave Winer <dave@userland.com> wrote:
> 
> > Aaron, there's some unfinished business that I want to explore.
> 
> Me too, I'd like to resolve it, but as you've mentioned before, all
> seem to end up doing is going around in circles.
> 
> > If you don't want to do it, that's fine, but there's been too much
> > mind control going on here.
> 
> I'd like to do it, but I want to do it in a way that's productive
> for everyone. I think Ken's site will be a good way to do
> that. Especially if you think there's mind control going on here.

> Once again, that address is:
> 
> http://rsswhys.weblogger.com

There's another way RSSWhy?s is intended to be used: take existing
threads, extract the individual points being made, and tracking them
to make sure they're not being repeated (circular, especially) and to
make sure important points are addressed.  This does not require
(though it does help tremendously) the up-front participation of the
conversants.  This also makes it unnecessary to follow two discussion
forums.  When points are repeated in a thread that have been made,
it's an easy thing to do to link to the messages in RSSWhy?s that
have tracked that point before.

RSSWhy's is open to anyone who wishes to track all the various angles
of a discussion.  Having additional analysts would help to flesh out
the style and techniques used on RSSWhy?s.  I would welcome you to
just dive in, going back to
<http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/670> and tracking the
points through.  If there are any questions about how analysis should
be done, just post those too, with "META:" in the title.

> Let's try and get what we both want -- a simpler RSS.

I believe this current thread is not about RSS technically, but about
RSS politically.  The thread of points that take a technical issue
early on and mushroom it into a political issue later would be an
interesting thread to have documented...

  -- Ken