Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > At 09:14 AM 2/22/00 -0800, Jon Bosak wrote: > >Without a democratic process for the orderly resolution of > >competing interests, this becomes (to use a phrase Len Bullard > >taught me) nothing but a knife fight. And pretty soon it attracts > >the participation of well-funded people who *like* knife fights. > >This is what happens when large sums of money are involved. I'm > >sorry, but that's how it is. > > I agree with this. There are people whose sole motivation is to destroy > consensus. I fear this for CML - company X could *deliberately* put out a > non-compliant CML implementation. As a part-time temporary academic I > cannot personally afford to buy and support a worldwide trademark for CML, > so I need real-life organisations. [It is perfectly possible for an > organisation to trademark SAX and prevent this community using it - or at > least fighting them.] The phrase is "there are no rules in a knife fight." We choose to make it a negotiation or a winner takes all affair. Open lists where volunteers can participate without paying membership dues are a way to stay out of a knife fight. Whether samurai or backstreet boy, honor is accentuated by openness. Where all can watch and some have nothing but sweat equity on the table, the tendancy is to stay out of dishonorable situations. It really is that simple. The vast majority of individuals do the right thing until the money becomes so important they can't. I told Dan Connoly a long time ago that the only way the web would make it is if it's leaders became Benedictines. ... and they did. Give 'em credit for that. A W3C job isn't exactly on a par with the stock options in Commerce One or Red Hat. Nothing stops a company from hijacking a spec. Nothing stops a consortia from providing access or denying access to process. It is the will of the members that rules in these matters. Still, if the volunteers go away, the true cost of engineering on the web will drive many of the dotComs and their investors into bankruptcy. That won't be a good thing. I am not a fan of engineering for free, but to get XML into Microsoft, it was worth it because that put markup, one of the truly open technologies and the best hedge we have against information death by denial of serviceability, into a lot of hands. We have a much better situation on the Internet today because we have a much better chance of keeping control of our information in our own hands. No, it's not perfect; just better than hacking RTF. I'm no fan of much of what I've seen in the last five years, but I am not afraid either. If I have to, I turn off the computer and fade. I choose. Play the game shown to win in every simulation of long play: Tit For Tat. o Be clear. o Be tolerant. o Be provocable. o Don't let your tats get bigger than your [expletive deleted]. Give OASIS a chance. If OASIS closes the lists as the W3C did, take the individuals responsible out into the alley for the provocable thing. Most of them are geeks anyway. ;-) len *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html ***************************************************************************
|
