Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss]previouslynon-referenced in the spec"References"]

Mike Schinkel mikeschinkel at
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 it’s 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[1] why I've lost most
of my initial enthusiasm for Microformats. FWIW.

-Mike Schinkel


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list