Adrian Custer wrote:
On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
Hey Cameron, all,
...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
alternative way forwards.
I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or
leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
do anyway.
Out of curiosity, how does this compare to the process by which KML
became an OGC standard?
This is a good example of the limits of governance at the OGC. Really,
a standard should not pass when there is concerted opposition to it.
The process is designed to suspend when there is opposition (2 no
votes), in an effort to build consensus. However, the ultimate
decision is still a 50% + 1 vote; probably, it should be a
super-majority of some kind.
I've always found the OGC process to be rather broken. But then I'm a
big fan of the IETF approach - bottom up, "rough consensus and running
code," a progression from experimental to recommended to mandatory, but
only after a long incubation period - and don't even think of using the
word standard until there are at least 2 interoperable implementations.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
