- From: Ric Johnson <ric@webplatform.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:29:43 -0400
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEGRnPTrzjFu+imvbsMghGf2TDEHWj66uUMfh9BOeCYtV7x+gA@mail.gmail.com>
Doug, I have some fantastic news! Google has finally given attribution to OpenDomain for Schema.Org http://schema.org/docs/faq.html#17 This has restored my faith in open source - if you want to open up discussion of the use of the WebPlatform.com, please let me know. Our goal is for the domain to actually be used - we may consider a donation of the domain, but do not want a simple redirect or copy. If you are no longer interested, we will put up a site ourselves but will not harm the community. Ric Johnson On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > Hi, Ric– > > On 7/19/14 2:13 AM, Ric Johnson wrote: > >> Doug, >> >> I seem to have taken great offense to your remarks. I am writing this >> email in a very heated mood, and I probably should edit it, but I think >> the topics I raise should be discussed, so I will keep the majority of >> it. I do hope to be able to work together, but you have questioned my >> integrity several times, so I feel I must respond. >> > > I was trying to be careful to state that I wasn't questioning your > integrity or intentions; I apologize if it came off the wrong way. > > > I never received any response to my request. I checked all my emails >> and can not find any previous discussion even on the email list >> archives. Please forward it to me if I am mistaken. >> > > I sent the response offlist. I don't seem to have a copy of it, but it > explained what I've already told you, that I've had bad experience with > "borrowed" domains in the past with svg.org, and no longer wish to rely > on domains that we don't control. This is nothing against you or your > service; it's simply not a situation we want to get into. > > In addition, from what I've read on the Web about OpenDomain.org, you > require a link back to your site on every page; we cannot offer this, > because it's too similar to advertising; even our stewards do not have > direct links back to their sites from our page footers. > > > I am sorry to hear what happened with SVG.org, but please do not put >> OpenDomain in the same category. Early on in the project, we were >> offered millions of dollars for one domain, but we gave it away for >> Free, only to be later sued by that person. That almost killed the >> project, but I fought to keep it going for years. More recently, we were >> contacted by a broker who offered $20k for another domain, but we told >> her that we do not sell domains, they should be used to support Open >> Source. We were ecstatic to learn that that she was working in behalf >> of one of the top promoters of open source: Google wanted to participate >> in OpenDomain! So we gave the domain Schema.org to them for Free - all >> we asked was to to be mentioned in the press release and a link. >> Unfortunately, they still have yet to fulfill their promises. Sorry to >> go off on a rant, but I have personally spent hundreds of thousands of >> dollars to acquire domains from squatters and gave them all away for >> Free to support open source and non-profits and it riles me for someone >> to question my "good intentions". >> > > I'm sorry that you had that experience with Schema.org, but we're not > affiliated with that project. We can only speak for WebPlatform.org, and we > are not interested in using other domain names that we don't control. Thank > you for the offer, however. > > > (Just a side note... WebPlatform.org isn't about open source, though we do > use open source software; it's about open standards, which I personally > think is just as important as open source, because it allows > interoperability between software regardless of whether it's open source or > proprietary; for example, HTML and CSS work the same way in Firefox and > Internet Explorer, in Brackets and DreamWeaver. I think this is what makes > open standards, and the Web, so powerful, and why I believe so passionately > in this project that is meant to empower everyone to use open standards... > and that's why our site is free, and is under a CC-BY license. Sorry for > the digression, when I see people conflate open source and open standards, > I feel the need to draw the distinction.) > > > I am also not sure what your intention for the paragraph "If your >> project is about open domains.." is intended to convey. OpenDomain is >> about "open source for domains". WebPlatform.com should be about >> commercial application of the Web Platform. I do no see any conflict >> that I support multiple projects - I also founded CharityCoin.Org . We >> mint celebrity coins to support charities - check it out and let me know >> what you think! >> >> Also, we do not see if someone offers a service on .COM that is not >> available on the .ORG that is can be considered competing. We do not >> want redirects for our domains - we ask that the domains be used with >> content that benefits the web. >> > > Perhaps "compete" is the wrong word; let me try to be more clear. If you > were to use a variation on our logo, and were to offer similar services > (teaching people about the Web Platform), that would confuse users as to > which site was which. They might hear about WebPlatform Docs, but > accidentally go to WebPlatform.com, thinking it was the same site. Surely > you see how that harms our project? If you truly want to help this project, > there are many other ways you can do so without risking this harm, and I'm > happy to work with you to find some safe, productive ways to help. > > > Several years ago, I gave OpenAjax.org in care of the W3 to help >> standardize Ajax. >> > > The OpenAjax Alliance was not affiliated with W3C, though we did have some > overlap in membership, so I can see why you might have had the wrong > impression: > > http://www.openajax.org/members.php > > > The problem is that developers did not know what >> "OpenAjax" was. To this day, I think only Dojo ever implemented it for >> a short time. I see this same problem again with WebPlatform - I have >> gone to dozens of web developer meetups and only one person even heard >> of the Web Platform project. I think that everyone has done some great >> work contributing content, but the marketing needs much more exposure. >> > > Yes, we do need more exposure, and we will shift to that mode when we feel > our content is ready. Hopefully that will be soon! > > But as far as the Web Platform itself (HTML, CSS, SVG, MathML, JavaScript, > DOM), there has never been a more successful, more widely used, more > broadly understood language or platform. It's wildly popular, and just > getting more popular and more powerful. As this project, WebPlatform.org, > matures, we feel it will be an essential part of the developer experience. > Rome wasn't built in a day! > > > Ok - again I am sorry for my tone of this email - I will try to be more >> constructive: >> That is our hope for WebPlatform.com - to help gain exposure for the Web >> Platform. We would like it to be used to as a separate site that has >> COMmercial value. That does not mean that I would profit - I just >> believe that would encourage more participation or at least help with >> some costs. >> > > I don't see how creating another site that might confuse developers would > encourage more participation in our project. I think it would have just the > opposite effect. > > > We would be happy to contribute the domain - to the Web Platform as a >> separate organization. Has there been any discussion of a foundation? >> > > There was some discussion early on about forming a foundation, but we > didn't feel it was necessary, because W3C is a responsible organization > that manages the site. If you wish to contribute the domain, W3C is the > organization to which you can assign the registration. We would be grateful > for your donation. > > If by "contribute" you mean to redirect the domain while retaining the > registration, then we'll have to politely decline, and thank you again for > the offer. > > Regards- > -Doug >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 22:30:12 UTC