On 6/2/2010 9:12 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
For shame Dave. Taking one sentence out of context is something I would
not have expected from you.
After all this time, I am glad to hear that I can still surprise you...
FWIW I took it out of context entirely knowingly. Frankly, I wasn't interested
in the particular topic.
As I said, I think that that captures the critical difference in what drives
the
two sides of these various-but-really-identical debates. The particular
context
wasn't the point. The difference in attitudes about /any/ of these topics is
the point.
The whole point of having a standard is to avoid the voodoo and
guessing.
Right. And a standard that is not adopted or used does not achieve this.
Worrying very carefully about adoption barriers -- who will adopt it and why --
is essential to this, but we have not been succeeding in getting answers to
hard
questions here.
You are absolutely correct that we should anticipate failures. That does
not mean we should anticipate FAILURE from a reasonably crafted
standard.
Actually, yes it does. That is exactly my point.
A side effect of living in Silicon Valley is seeing how often carefully crafted
startups fail. Good ideas and a well-designed product are not sufficient to
guarantee success, absent properly matching the /perceived/ needs of the folks
who will use it /and/ the folks who will pay for it.
We cannot protect foolish people from doing foolish things to
themselves. This is another case of King Canute.....
The benefit of that perspective is acknowledging limitations. The danger is
not
putting in enough effort to make things appropriately usable and/or not putting
enough effort into crafting a value proposition that is compelling to the
target
audience.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html