Re: [syndication] RFC 2: Branching RSS

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

Rael, you can't force "governance" on RSS. I think this was the disconnect
in August.

RSS was deliberately started without any governance. I know because I had
this discussion with the Netscape people in 1999. They made it very clear
that they were unhappy with the standards process and just wanted to create
something on their own. UserLand was able to get in the loop because we made
a strong and quick competitive move. Further you didn't succeed in adding
governance last August, because you never asked the community to approve it.
I know this because I was never asked, and at the very least, I am part of
the community. Had you asked I would have said what I said before on this
list -- fork a new format, which includes choosing a new name.

You could have started something new with governance as a starting
assumption, but by taking the RSS name you were trying to do something that
couldn't work. To say that the reallySimpleSyndication list must now have
governance you're stepping to something that you don't own and telling them
what to do. You can try, but unless there's a mass consensus to start
operating like a working group, it won't happen.

Imho, most of the people who use RSS are not familiar with the workings of
W3C-style working groups and would not have the time or patience to be part
of one.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: RE: [syndication] RFC 2: Branching RSS


> Howdy,
>
> : From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:aswartz@swartzfam.com]
>
> : I want to thank everyone for their contributions to the discussion so
far,
> : and here's my proposal for the next step in RSS development. Comments
are
> : appreciated. Also as usual, I speak only on behalf of myself.
>
> Much of what I write here is synthesized from my earlier posting:
>
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/1704
>
> : ** Freezing RSS
> :
> : RSS is declared frozen at 0.91. Everyone is asked not to develop any new
> : formats with the RSS name. RSS 0.91 is documented through a
collaborative
> : effort on behalf of the Syndication list, based on Dave Winer's
> : version. It
> : will be put at a neutral address such as <http://purl.org/rss/0.91/>.
The
> : specification will maintain a copyright notice that allows it to be
copied
> : in whole or in part. It can include pointers to other branches of RSS
>
> And this _must_ be done for 0.9 as well; there is a lineage here and to
> ignore it is to leave lots of dangling wobbly bits.
>
> : ** Branching RSS
> :
> : Both branches of RSS take new names, possibly RSS-Semantic (currently
RSS
> : 1.0) and RSS-Simple (currently RSS 0.92/3). These new names will
> : be used in
> : the rest of this document but that does not imply that these names must
be
> : chosen.
> :
> : The RSS-DEV Working Group will rename their spec and working group but
> : continue to maintain the RSS-Semantic branch. They will encourage
> : others to
> : correct documents that refer to "RSS 1.0".
> :
> : UserLand will rename the format used in their software as well as the
>
> I will once again reiterate the importance of having this come from the
0.9x
> community.  The members of reallySimpleSyndication are a perfect start;
drop
> in some governance to afford ordered decision-making, and we have a
> situation where both sides' interests are decently represented.
>
> : current RSS-Simple specs. They will encourage other users of the
> : spec to do
> : the same. If an RSS-Simple Working Group is formed it will not use RSS
as
> : the name of its spec.
>
> This group can simply change their name from reallySimpleSyndication to
> RSS-Simple or whatever they decide is the right monicre.
>
> : No party will extend RSS 0.90/1 with new features (new elements, etc.)
> : without using a new name. Changes currently in use (such as
> : removing element
> : length restrictions, etc.) will continue to be allowed.
>
> I'm assuming you mean that 0.91 is frozen per Dave's spec rather than
> Netscape's.  While I'm not sure how clean a break with the past this is, I
> leave this to the 0.91 developers (Userland and Netscape) to figure that
bit
> out.  There's more on this and credit in my other posting.
>
> : ** Arbitration
> :
> : If there are disputes about this agreement, they will be arbitrated by a
> : group of three active developers chosen from the Syndication
> : list, one to be
> : chosen by each side and agreeable to the other, and a Mark Nottingham,
the
> : founder of the Syndication list, will chose a third (possibly himself)
who
> : must also be agreeable to both sides. Decisions of the three-person
panel
> : will be made in a timely fashion and will be final.
> :
> : ** Acceptance
> :
> : If this proposal is not accepted by both UserLand and the current
RSS-DEV
>
> Again, the RSS 0.9x community.
>
> : Working Group its terms are not enforceable.
> :
> : All parties agree to put the past fully behind us. Discussion of
> : events that
> : took place before agreement was reached will be off-topic on all
> : three mail
> : lists.
>
> Save for learning purposes :-)
>
> Rael
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>