Hi all, Thank you for your comments on my post "Thoughts on the Standardization of Org." I appreciate all the feedback you have given me, I feel that, based off of the responses, there have been a number of miscommunications as to my intention.
First, I did not mean the post to be primarily an argument for whether/when org should be standardized, but rather a discussion on how a standard should be structured. I realize now that including my position on whether org should be standardized in the preamble was a mistake. Also, I want to note that I was not intending to discuss by whom the standard should be governed. (Though I do believe it should be by the org community, not an external standards body.) Second, there is the matter of principle and practice. I am not arguing for the org community to direct volunteer effort to a second editing environment, as some are concerned. I am also personally not planning on creating one. However, I want to make sure that standardization effort does not prevent another first-class editing environment from being created, should there at some point in the future emerge a group of people motivated to do that. In summary, I think that it is important to think about the Emacs implementation as one of many /in principle/, even though it is the sole implementation /in practice/, and may remain so. I hope we can have a productive discussion on how an org standard should be structured, separate from, though perhaps in addition to, the discussion of whether org should be standardized. Thanks, Asa
