Re: Dear Ken

[Ken MacLeod <ken118@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

Dave Winer writes:
> So -- let me offer you a deal.
> 
> 1. I will stand down as the defacto leader of the simple approach to
> RSS, I'll just be another user of RSS, making proposals, and looking
> for input or agreement with others.
> 
> 2. I'll pass the baton to someone who isn't so convenient a target
> for your personal issues. I would recommend Jeff Barr, he's got
> longevity in RSS, a product, and a lot of experience. I don't know
> if he has the time.

I do feel that having a dual role, vocal particpant and defacto
leader, does exacerbate the tension and that these would be an
alternative that would ease that tension.  Another alternative that
has been mentioned is having a voting group, which would also
distribute the load.  The core problem is that it is not obvious when
decisions are being made by the community or by the leader, and having
more members of the community objectively involved in decisions,
rather than one leader's subjective reading of people's comments,
would make that clearer.

Note that I'm not suggesting a single RSS board, council, or group for
both flavours, nor would I be concerned, if that route is taken, with
the composition or policies.  Of course, even a group still would not
have the authority to make demands of any other group.

> 3. Along with this, you will also stand down, by renaming the RDF and
> namespaces format to something other than RSS,

There was a poll[1] to rename the RDF/NS format to "xRSS", it was
split 50/50 among everyone who wished to respond.  Had a WG vote been
called for, I did not have the impression at the time that it would
have received the 2/3rds vote necessary to change the name.  Many of
the RSS community members who like the RDF/NS format of RSS are
adamant that it is RSS, too, and that doesn't seemed to have changed.
If I recall correctly, you have stated in the past that a renaming
must not include the letters "RSS", which would definitely be a deal
breaker.

The most positive suggestion response to date has been for each
flavour to have its own sub-designation as part of RSS.  Two "Special
Interest Groups", to use yet another term for the idea.

> Anyway, I think there's a general consensus that this two-RSS
> approach is pretty bad for RSS.

Most people would agree with that, me included, but with obvious
differences as to which format should be the one, so we have two and
it looks to stay that way.  That's where all of us need to work
together, to make that as simple as possible.  Regardless of what the
names are, there are two nearly identical formats for syndicating
headlines and associated information, and people will be faced with
that as long as they both continue to serve their needs.

  -- Ken

> Which contrary to your statement, *you* keep bringing up, you
> didn't have to post your hurt message to this mail list.

I posted suggestions, you unilateraly banned me from the mail list
without notice to anybody that I would not be able to respond to
discussion, I wrote as simply and concisely as I could that I would
not be able to respond on that mail list, and when asked, declined to
explain further about why.  Then you posted [2].

[1] <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260>
[2] <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/1631>