Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 21:28 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Or, to quote the IETF, "rough consensus and running code".
Except that the reference is to the informal criteria for when one might
even beginning to firm up a standard. In the IETF community - unlike
pretty much every other standards body on the planet - there's a pretty
strong insistence that there are multiple implementations of something,
that an talk to each other, before even thinking about pinning down
anything that looks like a standard.
IMHO standards are just a fancy way of documenting the solution. Until
you've build the solution, you don't understand the problem properly
[1]. If you try and write your standard while your understanding of the
solution space is underdeveloped, you'll end up with a pile of shite.
We're in violent agreement here. Unfortunately, outside the IETF world,
that's how standards are done - to just the effect you describe.
But that's really besides the point - which is that that the IETF quote
does not refer to the subject at hand (the cost/scale of software
development, the degree to which institutional support is called for,
and when support is needed) but to a philosophy of when to standardize
communications protocols.
Miles
--
Miles R. Fidelman, Director of Government Programs
Traverse Technologies
145 Tremont Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02111
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
617-395-8254
www.traversetechnologies.com
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
