On 5/10/13 12:25 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
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?
That was the first really contentious issue I experienced at the OGC. It
is related to the current situation in that the KML experience seems to
have encouraged ERSI to try to push GeoServices through.
However, I did not much care at the time so I did not follow the issues
and controversy. I gather there was a feeling that KML duplicated other
standards at the OGC and mixed data with presentation in a poorly
structured way. I also vaguely remember that there was more of a feeling
that Google really wanted to hand off the standard to the OGC. But
again, I am not sure about any of this; I have never even seen a KML
document.
~adrian
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
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
