Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

In deference to the chairs request, I've taken it off list. If it is  
appropriate and of interest to the group, i can bring it back on list.

One point, I should raise, is that the primary escalation into  
"moralistic bullying" was by Frank, not Paul. However, I think that  
various comments about the size of the PR market *misses the point*  
that if they are not *my* (or any particular members') market, then  
the size of the PR market is totally irrelevant. So I would ask the  
PR guys to temper those arguments --- they just don't have bite.

Oh, one other point:

"""Good luck with that. However, anyone who intends to influence RIF
as part of a commercial competition strategy against other RIF members
will likely be a problem to the group. An example of this would be if
one was arguing against PR support in order that one could claim W3C
rules compliance before commercial PR tools could."""

Again, this extrapolates from the interests of a few members to the  
interests of the whole. While standardization generally suggests that  
competitors have an interest in cooperating, it doesn't *eliminate*  
the competitive interests as well. Thus, it's not my job to *help*  
the PR vendors *per se*, unless they make it worth my while (either  
by supporting things I care about in the group, or by out of band  
wheeling and dealing). Thus, if the PR vendors want consensus and  
cooperation --- or *more than they are getting* --- they need to do  
some diplomatic haggling.
  One (good) move that's been made is to be ecumenical, "Everyone can  
fit in! Don't tread on us and we won't tread on you". But this is not  
a overwhelming move. If I think my interests will be hurt by a non- 
unitary approach, I'll argue against it. If that means kicking out PR  
rules, then it's not a problem *for me* except insofar as I won't get  
consensus in this group, or have to go to hard ball politics, which I  
generally prefer to avoid.

So, in a sense, I don't think bullying is out of bounds at all.  
That's part of the game. I just think it's counterproductive,  
overall. Or, well, at least with me :) Similarly, I don't think  
pointing out market share, etc., is the worst tactic. But it's  
insufficient. And, I think the argument from *your* marketshare to  
failure of the RIF from *my* perspective is just a non sequitur. If I  
want to kill the PR market (which, for the record, I don't  
particularly), that's my own business, and if that means killing the  
RIF, that would be my right as a member of the W3C (note, I'm *not*  
an invited expert; my organizations pay dues).

Now, that would be very non-ideal, IMHO, and I've striven to avoid  
it. But i don't see I need to accept pronouncements about success or  
failure that are not generally applicable.

Ok, I sorta failed to take it entirely off list :)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 13:04:32 UTC