Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Come back to earth everybody

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    I d like to refer you back to the piece I wrote on Sunday. http://tinyurl.com/zfraq In section 2, I said: It s possible that a new format, based on RSS 2.0
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to refer you back to the piece I wrote on Sunday.

      http://tinyurl.com/zfraq

      In section 2, I said: "It's possible that a new format, based on RSS
      2.0 could be an improvement, but any person or group attempting to do
      that must not in any way claim the exclusive right to do so, nor
      should it in any way attempt to interfere with the stability of the
      RSS platform. No one has the right to do that. RSS 2.0 is what it is.
      You can extend it through namespaces, that certainly is one way
      forward. You can take the format and make a new format as an
      evolution, but you must not call that RSS. That set of constraints has
      served us well."

      This is what we all have to live with, me, you, the members of this
      group. You don't have the exclusive right to determine the path
      forward for RSS, you may influence but you may not decide. You have to
      sell your ideas, they are not mandates.

      Dave
    • Dave Winer
      And with that, I am banging the gavel and ending this experiment of Rogers s. Tomorrow I will talk individualy with all the corporate members of the board
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        And with that, I am banging the gavel and ending this experiment of
        Rogers's.

        Tomorrow I will talk individualy with all the corporate members of the
        "board" and ask them to resign.

        Rogers may then wish to propose a new structure, one that is
        consistent with the "come back to earth" message.

        They may wish to join with him, or they may not.

        If anyone else decides to join up with him on the terms of the old
        "advisory board" I will talk with each of them individually, until
        they see that it serves no purpose.

        This process will go on until Rogers gets the idea that it isn't go to
        work.

        I may at some time send him a bill for all of my time that he is wasting.

        Good night and good luck to all of you.

        Dave




        --- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Winer" <dave.winer@...> wrote:
        >
        > I'd like to refer you back to the piece I wrote on Sunday.
        >
        > http://tinyurl.com/zfraq
        >
        > In section 2, I said: "It's possible that a new format, based on RSS
        > 2.0 could be an improvement, but any person or group attempting to do
        > that must not in any way claim the exclusive right to do so, nor
        > should it in any way attempt to interfere with the stability of the
        > RSS platform. No one has the right to do that. RSS 2.0 is what it is.
        > You can extend it through namespaces, that certainly is one way
        > forward. You can take the format and make a new format as an
        > evolution, but you must not call that RSS. That set of constraints has
        > served us well."
        >
        > This is what we all have to live with, me, you, the members of this
        > group. You don't have the exclusive right to determine the path
        > forward for RSS, you may influence but you may not decide. You have to
        > sell your ideas, they are not mandates.
        >
        > Dave
        >
      • Bill Kearney
        It s not your s to end Dave.
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 21, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          It's not your's to end Dave.


          ----- Original Message -----

          > And with that, I am banging the gavel and ending this experiment of
          > Rogers's.
          >
          > Tomorrow I will talk individualy with all the corporate members of the
          > "board" and ask them to resign.
          >
          > Rogers may then wish to propose a new structure, one that is
          > consistent with the "come back to earth" message.
          >
          > They may wish to join with him, or they may not.
          >
          > If anyone else decides to join up with him on the terms of the old
          > "advisory board" I will talk with each of them individually, until
          > they see that it serves no purpose.
          >
          > This process will go on until Rogers gets the idea that it isn't go to
          > work.
          >
          > I may at some time send him a bill for all of my time that he is wasting.
          >
          > Good night and good luck to all of you.
        • rcade
          ... The two mailing lists of the RSS Advisory Board and the public development of the draft spec are a sales process. The decisions that are being made from
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 21, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Winer" <dave.winer@...> wrote:
            > This is what we all have to live with, me, you, the members of this
            > group. You don't have the exclusive right to determine the path
            > forward for RSS, you may influence but you may not decide. You have to
            > sell your ideas, they are not mandates.

            The two mailing lists of the RSS Advisory Board and the public
            development of the draft spec are a sales process. The decisions that
            are being made from draft to draft are an attempt to suggest a path
            forward, not dictate one.

            The ultimate goal is to produce a spec that's worth presenting to the
            board because it has the confidence of the software developers who
            implement RSS. If it lacks that confidence, and at the end of the
            process developers like Ross are viewing it as a "competing version of
            RSS," I don't think it will be proposed for a vote, much less win the
            board's support.

            If you feel decisions are being imposed, you're in a unique position
            to bring clarity to the process by stating exactly what you intended
            the language in RSS 2.0.1-rv-6 to mean. Are multiple enclosures
            allowed in a single item? Is description the only RSS element that can
            carry HTML? Are relative URLs allowed?

            You can challenge the authority of the board to make these judgments,
            but when there's no other entity willing to make them for one of the
            most important XML dialects on the web, I don't see what choice you
            expect people to make.

            Without someone taking responsibility, there is never movement. So
            until the board tells me it wants work to stop on the draft spec, I'm
            going to proceed under the optimistic notion that all of this work is
            leading somewhere.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.