Good grief, it's starting to look like a bad WW2 propoganda film in here.
Whether the theories about the motives of The Beings From Beyond The
Firewall are true or not (and I have no intention of discussing that in
this message), there are further risks that we need to be wary of:
1) It was suggested that we effectively lost three days' development in
the XML furore. Certainly, the list got very busy for a few days, and we
need to make sure we keep focus when such things happen.
But many of us did. Hundreds more records appeared, new code was
written, new documentation created. Such valued voices as MessageLabs
popped up with supportive input. We didn't stop; I'm not even sure we
slowed down much. After all, this list isn't the entirety of the SPF effort.
2) It's also suggested that this "set the head of SPF against the body"
(excuse the misquote, I can't find the original offhand).
Now I'm fairly sure that whoever the leaders-we-don't-have are (1), the
head and the body are still on the same side (eh?). We all want to get
SPF written and active. Certainly it highlighted the importance of
politics in this matter, and if there was any split it was between those
who accept that there are political considerations to be made, and those
who won't.
Frankly I'm not good at playing technical politics and therefore have
the utmost admiration for those doing so so tirelessly on my behalf.
3) A risk arose that we opened ourselves to being categorised as the
"anti-commercial open-source anarchists" stereotype so beloved of many
corporations and the media.
This may be a false stereotype, but it sticks.
I think it's therefore important to state that we welcome input from
corporate groups of any size, if:
* They identify themselves, and speak for themselves (it's an open list)
* They agree to partake in a constructive technical dialogue, eg:
* They set out their suggestions clearly, including their believed pros
and cons, and provide any context needed to understand the issues
* They disclose any and all patents that could affect the proposal
In return we will evaluate their contributions with an open and fair
mind, and, where a company has been suspected of bad faith in the past,
we at least try to suspend our suspicions for long enough to perform a
proper technical analysis. (That said I suggest we not perform *any*
analysis on proposals that fail to meet the bulleted points above).
We may feel that the recent anti-microsoft sentiment on this list is
founded, but we don't even know whether that's who it was (and I will
enter into no correspondence on that point), and it got in the way of
proper analysis.
4) One more risk: we need to stick a peg in the ground *at the right
point* to say "we're ready to release now". That point should not be too
soon, but it cannot be allowed to be too late either; we've always got
v2 to play with. I think my views on this are known so I'll cut this
point short.
Finally I'd just like to take this chance to publically thank the
leaders of this amorphous herd of cats, whoever they may be, both for
their efforts and their acheivements.
Enough from me for now,
Wechsler
(1) with apologies to Terry Pratchett and Esme Weatherwax
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡