Re: [syndication] Re: Forking, the name game, the politics of naming
Ken,
> > The real question is who is forking? That is the name change
> > regardless of stakeholders' prior interest.
>
> Going back prior to 8/14 it's clear that there was large groups
> (regardless of how large) on both sides of the technical direction
> decision.
>
> If one can play "shouldas", what should of happened at that time is
> that both sides forked (or branched).
You are evading the question. Wasn't RSS already something, didn't it have
users and agrregators. So ...
RSS existed and was being used by lots of folk
Group A(including some of the RSS originators) wanted to make RSS extensible
etc.
Group B (including rest of the original group) wanted status quo
This is a fork by Group A why should Group B change the name of something
that existed. How do you defend this? If the RSS-DEV WG is so concerned
about the RSS brand why are you tarnishing it with this name grab?
... Let me see if I can sum it up. The basic problem appears to be that a group of folks want to take a direction with RSS which, in the opinion of the ...
Jeff Bone
jbone@...
Oct 19, 2000 2:20 am
... The question is who are the original stakeholders? According to some definitions, they are split. -- Aaron Swartz | me@... | http://www.aaronsw.com...
Aaron Swartz
aswartz@...
Oct 19, 2000 3:35 am
Aaron is right. But I think that the "who changes name" decision should be taken in such way that it causes the less possible trouble. Being the RDF line the...
Paulo Gaspar
Paulo.Gaspar@...
Oct 19, 2000 2:19 pm
The real question is who is forking? That is the name change regardless of stakeholders' prior interest. ... From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@...> To:...
Mark Ketzler
mketzler@...
Oct 19, 2000 4:47 am
... group ... effort, ... complexified ... keep ... the ... been ... Some of the original stakeholders are RSS-DEV, that is their issue. I come back to who...
Mark Ketzler
mketzler@...
Oct 19, 2000 5:30 am
... Going back prior to 8/14 it's clear that there was large groups (regardless of how large) on both sides of the technical direction decision. If one can...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 1:22 pm
That is the thing closer to a reasonable compromise that you come up with. =:o) Have fun, Paulo...
Paulo Gaspar
Paulo.Gaspar@...
Oct 19, 2000 2:22 pm
... OK, how about just calling the two forks "RSS" and "RSS-dev"? RSS for writers RSS-dev for developers ... -- Gary Teter, Big Dog Bulldog Beach Interactive...
Gary Teter
bigdog@...
Oct 19, 2000 3:16 pm
Ken, ... You are evading the question. Wasn't RSS already something, didn't it have users and agrregators. So ... RSS existed and was being used by lots of...
Mark Ketzler
mketzler@...
Oct 19, 2000 2:13 pm
But Mark also has a point here. Paulo...
Paulo Gaspar
Paulo.Gaspar@...
Oct 19, 2000 2:23 pm
... I am not now nor have I ever tried to evade a question. If my responses don't appear to clearly address the question, I definitely urge anyone to take me...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 3:30 pm
[added note] ... ...and whether that new functionality must be cleared through a central register or committee, or whether groups of users can extend RSS...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 4:16 pm
... From: "Ken MacLeod" <ken@...> To: <syndication@egroups.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: Forking,...
Mark Ketzler
mketzler@...
Oct 19, 2000 4:19 pm
... RSS has no development path outside of what the existing RSS users choose to do with it. Both Group A and Group B are from the same Group RSS. You're...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 5:44 pm
Ken, Here's something we can agree on -- we are going around in circles, perhaps by design ;-) My final comments below, I will let you have final say, need to...
Mark Ketzler
mketzler@...
Oct 19, 2000 7:06 pm
... My deepest apologies to everyone for not doing better to avoid circles. I offer up RSSWhy?s as my evidence for at least not wanting to. ... When a project...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 7:43 pm
Ken, I think your idea is great. I think we all agree on the functionality (at least at some point we do). So how do we go about doing it? Proposing a...
Steve Agalloco
spagalloco@...
Oct 19, 2000 8:23 pm
... I don't believe any of that is necessary. The non-RDF+NS group is looking for slow, incremental improvements. I'm not suggesting that we choose to...
Ken MacLeod
ken@...
Oct 19, 2000 9:40 pm
I don't think it would be wise to steamroll this proposal through the Syndication list. Shouldn't we first resolve the naming issue for RDF+NS RSS in RSS-DEV?...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email