Danny Ayers wrote:
On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 20:05]:
If the community can drive a viable solution without the
overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will
have far less to complain about or will at least be able to
devote more time to bashing atom ;-)
Yahoo!'s approach did seem to work very well without any formal
process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple
came along...
... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to
all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal
process", isn't going to work out very well long term.
While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" of
a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is enough
interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would benefit
from a wider set of participants.
Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF
standardization process? While I certainly would label some of the last
few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of
allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.
Yes, developing specs up to Atom 0.3 was much easier when Mark, Joe, I,
and few others could just listen to feedback on mailing lists, blogs,
and wikis, and do what we thought was best.
But Atom 1.0 is much better. Much.
My $0.02.
- Sam Ruby
