[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last look at W3C


Jason,

Although I'm tempted to refute your assertions on a point-by-point basis based upon my experiences as an IETF WG chair as well as a W3C WG participant and Advisory Committee representative, the time for back-and-forth about their relative merits is over; the IETF has approved a Working Group and once the train is set in motion, it's nigh impossible to switch tracks (but all too easy to stop).

I will, however, point out that IP issues in standards bodies are MUCH more subtle than saying that the IETF provides "no IP protection" whilst implying that W3C is a patent-less nirvana. These are issues that we'll need to be conscious of no matter where we go.

Finally, any company saying that they won't support a final Atom because of where it was standardised is engaging in bald politicking and FUD; they should be ashamed, and certainly not listened to. Adoption will be determined by market acceptance, not which org's stamp of approval Atom gets; both the IETF and W3C have had spectacular successes and failures, and if Atom is a success, any vendor who doesn't implement for this reason alone will only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Regards,


On Jun 13, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Jason Shellen wrote:


I'm sorry I hesitated in responding to Tim's good news regarding the
IETF, however I have one last request before continuing on in that
organization. I think it is a fine choice and will continue to
participate and support either organizational choice. I'm not writing
this just to stir the pot or slow down Atom progress, but to voice
some important concerns.

After the community meeting I had some time to mull over the
differences in organizational style and I think everyone is well aware
of how the IETF works (voting my mailing list, everything by mailing
list really), but I still don't think folks have fully considered the
benefits of the W3C in the interest of an educated electorate, here
are some key things to consider about the W3C:

- Specifications, standards and recommendations are backed by a rich
organization
- Provide legal protection for IP and legal counsel to draw on when issues arise
- Royalty free patent policy
- Well-oiled machine for PR and promotion of work done in W3C
- Testing and QA infrastructure
- Don't take on many specs, not many dead specs
- Full time working staff working on outreach, organization and testing
- Other working groups with similar goals to ours that may benefit Atom
- Companies (of any size), individual developers and invited experts
are welcome in working groups
- Combination of methods to produce specs (Face to Face meetings,
mailing lists, etc) all coordinated by W3C

I believe the above are important issues. With the IETF we have no
promotion, no IP protection (perhaps the need to set up a 501c3 or
503c6, if we did want this), and no dedicated full time staff.  Please
consider this option a last time before we take a final step.

On a sad note, I have recently heard from a few companies who would
like to implement Atom but will only support this if it becomes a W3C
standard not an IETF spec.  While I feel this is shortsighted, this is
a reality and something to consider.

Finally, I appreciate the call for consensus last week, but I was on
vacation, Sam Ruby was on vacation and I think these things should
usually have some notice and perhaps even a week or so before voting
is declared over. In the interest of this, can we extend the final
IETF over W3C consensus poll until this Thursday, one week from Tim's
original email?

Cheers,

Jason Shellen

http://www.shellen.com


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/