intertwingly

Matt May: We at W3C like Atom. In fact, we like it so much that we want to work on it. We like it so much that we're offering a staff member to play the role of process sherpa. We're throwing the doors wide open to anyone who wants to contribute. And in the process, we're ensuring there's really no value in a company joining the W3C to work on it. We're doing it because we get it, and we care about it, and we want to help it succeed when it's made a standard.

Speaking for myself, my concern remains about openness, not time to market.  Realistically the best that either the IETF or the W3C could offer is a chance for a completed standard in the first half of 2005, and neither will provide a guarantee that the standard will be complete in the second half of 2005.

I very much appreciate the doors being flung wide open, but what concerns me is small details.  Details like the W3C permits, enables, and facilitates decision making in face to face meeting and teleconferences.  By contrast, the IETF requires all decisions to be made on the mailing list.

From my perspective, the IETF has extensive experience with identifying and preventing behavior that is inadvertently exclusionary.

The one thing that I felt that was not adequately explored in the meeting was the possibility that there might be a difference from a legal perspective between these two organizations.  Unfortunately, I am not qualified to assess any such differences.

<tongue-in-cheek>

P.S.  I have a hard time taking seriously statements by people that they get it when they don't even provide a valid feed.

</tongue-in-cheek>