Re: rough consensus and running code [was: Federation protocols]

I've seen this reference to "market driven" development a few times, is
that actually what you are striving for?
I mean, isn't that exactly part of the dilemma? Things like Mosaic that
turned into Netscape in the very heady money days,
isn't that type of heavy money when people realized the commercial value of
the internet, isn't that part of the present
problem/construct with the promotion of and willingness of people to trade
their privacy over to corporations?
The feigned image created that "we're all one big happy family", that is as
long as you keep shilling out money to Verizon or whoever?
But I feel these questions of the federated area are of extreme importance,
not necessarily just because of the US govt
looking at their own citizens' info, but you know, I follow the 2600 group
and people like Adrian Lamo on FB.
And I can imagine that people in other countries than the US, like
"hackers" in China or Russia for example,
are probably working on their own protocols. Isn't Ngnix from Russia, and
it's presently the fastest server on the planet for flat files, correct?
I mean the period which Dave Clark speaks of in this paper:
http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/jan95/ccr-9501-clark.pdf
I mean he's talking about the mid 70s!
The internet for (a few) decades
 would be largely a US and European-based animal, with a few other
(moneyed, again) hot spots around the globe, like perhaps South Africa.
I mean, the world is a very different place now, and the question of
federation when I look at it is people trying to carve out (or reach out
to) regions in
amongst people of very different backgrounds, if their backgrounds can be
determined at all, and many of very dubious origin.

Dan


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl>wrote:

> Dnia czwartek, 13 czerwca 2013 o 00:58:33 Miles Fidelman napisał(a):
> > Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> > >> Yup... rough consensus and running code, then the market tends to
> drive
> > >> what gets adopted.
> > >
> > > What the rough consensus is, please, can you tell me? Or point to a
> > > document that describes it?
> >
> > The bywords of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and about the
> > only well proven standards process I know of: (...)
> >
> > Or as Dave Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Clark) puts it:
> > "/We reject: kings, presidents and voting//. //We believe in: rough
> > consensus and running code./^" (...)
>
> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough here. What I mean wasn't "what does rough
> consensus mean in general" but "what the rough consensus is in this
> particular
> case".
>
> My point being, there is none, and we're not doing anything to arrive at
> one.
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam
> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>
> Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania
>