Banning for meta-discusion [was RE:
[uf-discuss]previouslynon-referenced in the spec"References"]
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Sun Jan 7 11:48:13 PST 2007
Joe Andrieu wrote:
> My own frustrations mostly stem from the fact that, IMNSHO,
> far too many decisions are made by a small number of people
> without any legitimate process in place for building or
> judging consensus. The addition of "place" for hCard is a
> great example. That was a significant change in semantics
> and there was not a consenus about it. Rather, those who
> have the functional capability simply updated the wiki.
> Brian responded to this earlier saying he felt it was
> appropriate because it reflects common usage. But that
> really isn't what a standard is. The problem before the
> metric system was that every jurisdiction's common usage for
> various measures was different. No interoperability.
> Same thing with timezones before standardization. In fact,
> microformats and the semantic web are ALL about creating
> interoperability. For example, the restrictions on the
> namespace are all geared to /forge/ a consensus standard
> taxonomy. If that "standard" can change at the drop of a few
> emails, it really isn't much of a standard.
> But we have neither quality versioning nor explicity
> processes for approving and designating "official" microformats.
> Everything is essentially at the whim of our fearless leaders.
> There is a feeling that things are a bit autocratic, that if
> a few people agree its a good thing, then nobody else's
> opinion really matters.
> > When only one disruptive individual has problems with governance,
> > rather than the community as a whole, then it tends to lead one to
> > believe that the problem may be more with the individual
> > than with the community or the governance.
> More than just Andy has expressed frustration.
> Tantek, there is no governance for uF other than by cabal,
> which historically has proven useful only in a limited scale.
> The alternative, of determining a means of governance, need
> not create a heavy bureaucracy, in fact, it can be
> liberating. Frankly, a more decentralized approach would do
> uF good. And that would require a small set of explicit
> procedural standards and a huge release of authority.
> The obvious and/or naïve bureacratic options could easily
> create a mess of burdensome procedures, but there's no reason
> we would have to be naïve or choose the obvious.
I just wanted to mention that I *strongly* agree with Joe on his comments
that I included above. It's those reasons and others why I've lost most
of my initial enthusiasm for Microformats. FWIW.
More information about the microformats-discuss