> I can think of three possible routes this could take, which, from a user's > perspective, are good, neutral and bad respectively.
I think Mark is close to the truth here. The PDC means genuine change for the big trading funds that have the most valuable data, and which haven't seen any structural change despite the big Gordon Brown-era releases of postcodes, maps etc under Tim Berners-Lee et al. This change could be good, or bad - the only way I diasagree with Mark is that I don't think the changes could be neutral. This is because in my view the current situation is so crappy that 'no change' would definitely be bad. If you're a natural cynic, you'll just say the government has already decided to flog everything off to the highest bidder. If you adopt that position, and give up without a fight, the people in Whitehall and the trading funds who want to do that will almost certainly win. However, if you believe me when I say things are finely balanced, that either side could win, and enough well-organised external pressure could really make a difference over the next year, then you won't just bitch, you'll get stuck in. I give up some of my time almost every week to fight this fight, and so do people like Michael Cross and Charles Arthur. But getting the PDC to be the thing hackers need it to be will take more than that - it'll take real grassroots pressure, and a pinch of luck. Tom _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
