(Hopefully slightly less) Total confusion in RSS-Land

[Rael Dornfest <rael@oreilly.com>]

Howdy,

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:59:03PM -0700, Rael Dornfest wrote:
> > 
> > Putting the content aside for a second, I think we have a nice experiment
> > in grassroots standardization happening on RSS-DEV with policies and
> > procedures that are actually quite decent. I ask you to take a gander if
> > you've not already done so[1].  Please understand that I'm in no way shoving 
> > this down anyone's throat; just hoped it might provide some interesting
> > grist for the mill.
> 
> I didn't realize that RSS-DEV had a charter, etc.; pleasant surprise.
> Unfortunately, groups that come about without a larger context may have
> difficulty asserting any authority, as might be the case here ;)

It's less about asserting authority and more about taking a leap of faith,
nominating representatives, and putting a process in place (which takes a
little bootstrapping but does work).

> > Standards bodies rely upon the people involved to be productive, 
> > cooperative, and respectful.  Taking a mess to a standards body with the
> > hope that it'll be cleaned up by virtue of being given a home is, in my
> > opinion, rather optimistic.  Take a gander at the XML-DEV mailing list a
> > view into the efficacy of standards bodies[2].  (Not rendering an opinion
> > here, mind you, only a pointer.)
> 
> Very true. I'd hope that cooler heads would prevail, but I'm not at all sure
> of it. Having to justify your choices, as well as having deadlines (however
> soft) tend to encourage decisions; hopefully rational ones. 

Again, I point you at RSS-DEV proposal/discussion/polling/voting process, 
Working Group v. Interest Group, and acceptance of dissent as the start 
of a conversation.

> > Not that I'm against optimism, mind you.  That's why I firmly believe its
> > possible for resolution in some form here.  Syndication and RSS-DEV have
> > on the main a wonderful group, representing a wide swath of the the RSS
> > user-base: theorists, implementors, end-users, et al.  There just needed
> > to be a little more organization in the beginning.
> 
> I'm regularly accused of being an optimist; no worries. I agree that good
> people are doing good work here, but I'm concerned that without a larger
> context, this work will be lost. RSS as a format has had half-acceptance for
> a long, long time; I'd like to see that change, but IMHO nothing on either
> side of the fence here is really encouraging that.

I believe this very thread disproves your assertion.  I (and I don't
believe I'm alone here) find this to be a calm, collected, useful,
and interesting exchange and one that has made me glad to have delurked on
[Syndication] after a bit of an absence.

Again, attempting to see through eachothers' eyes here, I ask your (and
others) thoughts on http://www.egroups.com/message/syndication/788.

Regards,

Rael

------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rael Dornfest                  rael@oreilly.com
  Maven,                         http://www.oreillynet.com/~rael
  The O'Reilly Network           http://meerkat.oreillynet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------