Aaron Swartz <aswartz@...> writes:

> Ken MacLeod <ken@...> wrote:
>
> > I may be too optimistic about how united a project we will appear
> > to be. I've seen from all sides (not necessisarily all
> > individuals) the desire to work amicably once this issue is behind
> > us. I don't know for sure.

> > Again, in principle, do you see this as a possible resolution to
> > the issue? Agreeing in principle means working out the details
> > after the general agreement, so as not to waste time on little
> > things if you don't agree on the big things.
>
> I don't see this as a resolution -- I see this as the natural course
> of events after the naming issues are resolved. No matter what the
> two specs are called, people will still refer to them as RSS, and
> they will be seen as two implementations of the same idea. I have no
> problem with that, if that's what you're asking.

How do you expect the naming issue to be resolved?

Here's how I replied to Mark Ketzler on that subject in [syndication]:

There's no apparent process available to us to come to closure on
the name, excepting rss-dev's process presuming that they'd be
willing to change their name, of which I don't at all expect a 2/3's
vote agreeing to change it wholesale.

On the other hand, I do see a possibility of a 2/3's vote for
agreeing to a branch name if RSS without RDF+NS looks like it will
move forward and will agree to a branch name also.

*That* result depends on how open the process is here on
syndication.

Do you see this any differently?

> I'm not quite sure I understand what you're proposing here,

Happiness for all involved. Or least an attempt.

-- Ken