Microsoft's responce to XML.com article

[David Brownell]

Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> Even a completely open process can end-up in a arbitrary decision.

If it's "open", I think that'll be false.  In fact, the lack
of ability to make such arbitrary decisions is a criticism
that some wave against openness:  sometimes you just need to
move on, and you need someone with the moral authority to
decide (e.g. Linus) so things can move on.  (In all honesty,
I don't think Tim B-L has corresponding authority now.)


> For examples people have been coding USB support for more than two years
> Linus didn't like it, and rewrote a new USB layer from scratch.

A better characterization: USB support had been getting nowhere,
and baroque, largely due to it being a one person project.  So
Linus and a few others did a rewrite (in the 2.2.7 kernel) and
most importantly opened it up ... it's been steadily moving forward
ever since.  

Moral there:  A closed process got replaced by an open one, which
proved to be quite effective at producing better results.

Note:  just because everyone can get the "open" source doesn't mean
that everyone's in the core design team.  The process issue is that
the core team needs to be out in the open, accessible, and willing
to listen.  W3C's process is weak on those points.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.