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

Re: Come back to earth everybody

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Feb 21 8:24 PM
    • 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 2 of 4 , Feb 21 8:47 PM
      • 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 3 of 4 , Feb 21 9:13 PM
        • 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.