Re: We can't use RSD

[Daniel Berlinger <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The spec is owned and controlled by a single person with a competitive 
> interest in this space.  The spec currently lives on a server where that 
> person has sole authorship rights.  Daniel has had plenty of time to 
> submit it to any number of standards bodies, but he has chosen not to do 
> so.  In fact, he has shown no apparent interest in changing the 
> copyright or licensing situation at all until we decided not to use it 
> in draft 7 (on technical grounds which have been publicly discussed in 
> multiple places, see my previous message for references).  And now all 
> of a sudden we hear some vague handwaving about Creative Commons and get 
> accused of plotting a nefarious conspiracy to exclude him ("yuck").

Once again, I accused no one of this. "Conspiracy" was Joe's word, not mine. I did complain about back channel conversations, which Joe said took place in email, and from what you wrote, as he installed a fern watering system on your porch... The content of these conversations remain back channel, but the end result was the removal of RSD from the spec without the public concencus Joe said there was.

This revelation occured because I asked Joe to tell me where the consencus took place, since I couldn't find anything on the Wiki or in any other archives... it turned out that there was none. 

Joe has since recanted his use of the term concensus, but not the decision to remove RSD from the RFC. He called for technical discussion and a show of hands here on this list. He also said that whatever folks agree to is fine with him, something I don't doubt. No reason to accuse people of hijacking specs is there? 

(And not to get ahead of myself but Joe's rfc  "currently lives on a server where that person has sole authorship rights" to my knowledge. Seems like by your own argument, it should live on the Wiki...) 

Folks who have an interest in the space (which you characterize as a "competitive interest") seem to support the use of RSD. If folks who compete in the space think it works, why shouldn't people who don't? It wasn't just the engine folks who built support for RSD into their products it was my "competitors" who did so as well.

As to the issue of spec ownership, until Joe raised the issue with me the other day suggesting the IETF, no one has had a single comment about it. And my response to Joe was simply, 


 > I hadn't given it moments thought. I'm not against it in 
 > any way, but I'm not certain what it would take
 > (to write an official RFC) or what it means to have submitted it.


Joe didn't have any answers, so I suggested a CC license as a simple alternative, he said "let's see what the community has to say". I said essentially "fine".

That's all there was to the conversation. It had nothing to do with the change to draft 7, and the conversation predated (7/29) the change.

I repeat, the community is welcome to the RSD spec and name. The format was always open. It just seemed silly to change the license now without knowing what would suit the community. *That* discussion never came up, because RSD was removed from the RFC. The rest is in the record.

I didn't "choose" to do anything about the license because no one cared. Everyone felt free to implement without whatever fear you seem to wish to generate.

> And, to drive the point home in an ironic fashion, I have been unable to 
> view the spec because its server has been down for at least the past 12 
> hours.  Whatever you may think of standards bodies such as the IETF, or 
> spec-writing processes such as the Internet Draft/RFC process, at least 
> their specs are available when I go Googling.

How could you write such a strong opinion of what RSD is capable of (or not) in if you couldn't read the spec?

Is there a need to be this ridiculous? Raise your hand if you never had a problem with your server or ISP... that's what I thought.

The spec can be hosted by anyone, anywhere. All I ask is that it point back to the original. If someone wants to donate a spot where it can be edited en masse, that's fine, give me a shout and we'll work out the details, preferably in public.

> Bottom line: this project can not afford to be held hostage by a 
> conspiracy theorist with competitive interests.
>

FUD, pure FUD.

The record is clear, I never suggest that there is a conspiracy, not against me or RSD. And RSD was built in public with "competitors" in the loop making (implemented) suggestions. Gee, I was silly enough to think that the folks who worked on RSD were a community of developers working to improve  a problem we all faced.

There is no reason for Mark to have accused me of the above, I've done nothing to deserve it.

I also didn't realize that everyone involved in this project is free of "competitive interest". Is that the rule? I didn't see it in the Wiki, and it seems like just about everyone involved would fail that test.

Apparently, there's a serious problem with my using the word "yuck". I didn't realize it was a heinous term. Apologies to all.

> We've been down that road; we know exactly where it leads.
> Build on open standards, or don't  bother building at all.

RSD is as open as this community wishes, the community just has to be explicit and display public concensus about what's "open to all".


d.