Re: [syndication] Some suggestions for RSS .92

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

"Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com> writes:

> > Like those asking now for other people to change names, and as you
> > say, I really have no say in this.  This is really between the
> > original stakeholders.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more! I am spending my companies money on an RSS
> implementation. I and many other non-original stakeholders have a
> lot at stake -- money, reputations, jobs ... To say that only the
> original stakeholders matter is upsetting and limits the adoption of
> RSS. I thought this was an open process. The original stakeholders
> are and always will be the founders of this movement. All credit
> should be given to them for their efforts. I would be surprised to
> here that *they* would want this to be a closed process. Am I
> missing something here?

No, probably not.  I don't know.

There's no apparent process available to us to come to closure on the
name, excepting rss-dev's process presuming that they'd be willing to
change their name, of which I don't at all expect a 2/3's vote
agreeing to change it wholesale.

On the other hand, I do see a possibility of a 2/3's vote for agreeing
to a branch name if RSS without RDF+NS looks like it will move forward
and will agree to a branch name also.

*That* result depends on how open the process is here on syndication.

I see a win-win for future development by sharing the name and doing
anything to make it more like we're all on the same side and not
opponents.  Ideallistically, we've never been opponents because we all
have the same functional goal.  I don't know if this is or ever will
be considered a win for healing the rift between the original
stakeholders, but it's pretty clear to everybody that we need to put a
stop to this and move on.

As I see it, the ball is in the no-RDF+NS group's court.

  -- Ken