Re: [syndication] Re: Forking, the name game, the politics of naming

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

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

> The real question is who is forking? That is the name change
> regardless of stakeholders' prior interest.

Going back prior to 8/14 it's clear that there was large groups
(regardless of how large) on both sides of the technical direction
decision.

If one can play "shouldas", what should of happened at that time is
that both sides forked (or branched).

Since we can't play "shouldas", and can't correct the mistakes made on
both sides during and after the snafu, we can only choose to resolve
them now.

One suggestion on the table is that we call them both branches.
Something like "RSS, Basic" for the branch building up from RSS0.91,
and "RSS, Extended" for the branch building on RDF+NS.

How about another poll?  If the poll is on [syndication], it would
read like below, if on [rss-dev], the sense would be reversed.

  If this would resolve the naming issue, and the RDF+NS group were
  willing to use a name like "RSS, Extended" for their format, I would
  be willing to use a name like "RSS, Basic" for our format.

    * Yes
    * No
    * I abstain.

  -- Ken