[georss] Creative Commons

[Carl Reed OGC Account]

Alan -

If you wish to use an ASCII document template, I might suggest following the 
template used by the IETF.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff harrison" <jharrison at thecarbonproject.com>
To: <adoyle at eogeo.org>; <georss at lists.eogeo.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [georss] Creative Commons


> Actually, there is no reason why a viable open specification for georss 
> could not evolve under this model.  The "we" would be a "coalition of the 
> willing".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Allan Doyle"<adoyle at eogeo.org>
> Sent: 06/08/06 4:30:06 PM
> To: "georss at lists.eogeo.org"<georss at lists.eogeo.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [georss] Creative Commons
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2006, at 16:15, Marc wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>> In all cases, the folks doing development work using a given spec or
>>> standard can feed enhancement/change requests into the organization
>>> maintaining that spec or standard.
>>>
>> I think this is the important point in this discussion. How is the
>> GeoRSS standard going to evolve? Who is maintaining it? Who decides
>> which direction to take?
>
> 1. Someone turns what we have into a document and commits it to svn.
> Call that version 0.1
>
> 2. Any new changes are discussed, and when we hit consensus, they get
> made in the document and we bump the version number
>
> 3. At some point we all feel good about it and call it 1.0
>
> 4. Repeat 2 and 3 for 1.1 --> 2.0
>
> Or forget the fancy numbering and just use SVN Revision numbers.
>
> Anyone writing code should say what version numbers their code is
> designed for.
>
> Once we hit the right level of functionality, we stop. My vote on
> stopping is sooner rather than later. I also prefer that changes be
> backwards compatible unless there's a real overarching reason to
> break that.
>
> I do think we need a document rather than a web site as the normative
> version. I would not be averse to an 80 column ASCII (or is that
> UTF-8 these days) format.
>
> So who is "we"? In OGC and W3C, it's the people who paid to be there.
>
> I would prefer to have "we" be chosen under some criteria other than
> money.
>
> Allan
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> georss mailing list
>> georss at lists.eogeo.org
>> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>>
>
> -- 
> Allan Doyle
> +1.781.433.2695
> adoyle at eogeo.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss
>
> _______________________________________________
> georss mailing list
> georss at lists.eogeo.org
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/georss