Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: standards development and community process
 Ok, but let's review how that was done so everyone understands. What works once in different circumstances may or may not work again. Sorry about the length but having been there for both, I guess I have some input: Some history and comments: 1. VRML started out on a mail list that Mark Pesce and Gavin Bell moderated and Brian Behelendorf administered. The orientation of the initial group made all the difference. They believed they could do it and they had a plan. 2. The discussion was very focused. If one began to stray into threads not related to the spec, Mark or Gavin could be very pointed in stopping that. And I do mean, pointed. Tough skin required. 3. No one was interested. Let me explain. Outside of SGI and a few small companies, no bigger concerns gave a hoot. They watched to see if it turned into anything successful. XML was different. We knew it would work. It became a sales job but as Bray has noted before, that wasn't that hard. Companies knew it would work. SGML proved it. It just needed tightening and focus. VRML 1.0 was Open Inventor --. So like XML, simplifying an existing design and taking account for the platform (THE WWW) was the job. 4. The authors stayed quiet (see 2). The developers were semi-open about the code they were developing. Let's say they shared their embarrassment openly. SGI kick started things with a parser. Sharing and conformance were key. After an implementation was available, the authors became full participants and their feedback was and is invaluable. Someone has to use the thing but again, context. 5. This was ONE application language. No meta-ideas were introduced until VRML 2.0 (now ISO VRML97). This helped the focus, so one might better compare it to SVG or HTML. Narrow focus with no regard to larger issues helps and hinders, but to stay on schedule, it is vital. 6. Once we got into VRML97, there was a big list for discussions such as these and working lists for tightly focused projects. Self-governance depends on discipline with respect to activity and context. It can be difficult to pull together as the WGs spawn like fish and need to swim upstream over new obstacles to get back together. That integration work is the hardest work of all and folks like Connoly get my respect for doing it. 7. It has been suggested that one reason the W3C did not embrace VRML was that it was not their spec (NIH) and because powerful members of the W3C (vendors) were driven back when they tried to muscle in. There is something to what Simon is saying and don't think it doesn't happen; it is just a case-by-case thing and all is forgiven after the final drafts are approved. For everyone's sake, practice Coyote and Sheepdog politics: anything goes until the bell rings, then go drink beer together. People are more important than technology. Build bridges afterhours. 8. Mistakes in design were made and some compromises compromised market share. Designing a one size fits all usually results in coverage but not fit. VRML is often cited as a failure but to date, it remains the only web standard for real-time 3D graphics. It needed to be componentized because its emergence dovetailed the explosion in web browser size and that knocked it out of the download slipstream. That has changed. There are some really very nice VRML97 players out there now with component designs. Check out www.parallelgraphics.com for Cortona. Or check out the Shout design, or the Blaxxun design. I like cortona because it supports MP3 (so sue me, i am a musician). ISO participation did not start until the second version (VRML97). At that point, it was decided that an official home for the spec was needed and some of us successfully plead for ISO. As I said then, leaving gold in the town square without guards is bad security, and the specs need maintenance. There had already been a deal in the works between ISO and SGI over Open Inventor. Rikk Carrey approached them about using VRML instead. In the spirit of the emerging web, it carried. Note that these issues were discussed and experienced people on the list made the points made here about a process. Boy did we ever fight over process, but in the end, it came down to enabling the greatest number of voices to be heard as long as there were leaders capable of moving the discussion to closure around a consensus. We also voted online. Weird, but Jeffersonian democracy does work when the issues are clear and limited in scope. Note that the ISO process is somewhat separated from the list process. The Web3D Consortium handles the lists and its members keep track. ISO works in concert with them and its representatives are members of the lists. Nothing is hidden and it gets raucous. What ISO does is make sure it keeps moving to a schedule and the editing meets spec. Note, the Technical leader actually has to take the punishment for that. We keep it open because that is how we choose to work and we pay for that with inefficiencies. On the other hand, we don't tell people to bugger off and shut up unless they really really get on nerves, even then, no one removes them from the list. The challenge of maintaining a community is one we meet because it is the greatest accomplishment of all, far greater than the spec itself. Tech comes and goes; people count. Without the community, the spec is paper. With the community, the spec brings coherence to our competition to outbuild each other. It is to be relished, savored, and appreciated. Big powers have tried to muscle VRML. It doesn't work. There is a period prior to choosing the VRML97 design which is interesting reading. The design chosen was actually voted on by the list members at large. This same tact has been useful at other times. People learned how to negotiate to consensus, and if they embarassed themselves, they were no worse off than Wyle E Coyote at the bottom of a canyon. They accept the potential to race the bird. However, "as the twig is bent, so grows the tree." VRML was started by individuals for whom community was the most important quality for a specification to become a standard. Without the consent of the governed, no governing authority can govern. Because community, the prime ethos, has been such a driving force, and because anytime this ethic has been challenged, the member community cohered behind it, it has been easy to meet the challenge. This has had mixed results. It took a year to get VRML1.0 out. It took about two years to get VRML2.0 out. VRMLnextGen is coming together, but the fight over the object model is fierce: the question being, is the DOM the right model for performance-centric apps? XML has been the most contentious issue we have had to deal with because it opens the community to the need to share by common means with a greater community, and yes, there is a lesson in that for those who think the W3C can be like the Web3D Consortium. The problem with ISO is they want a standard. The problem with designers is that they want fast, competitive software. The challenge is to meet that in the middle with something everyone still cares about and is still marketable. Gritty work. ISO had to promise the spec could be freely downloaded. Since it is a Web3D spec before it becomes and ISO standard, that was an easy arrangement to make. It stays online and Dick Puk at ISO understands the community rules and abides by them. Also, note that during the time when "no one cares", very small design teams ably lead pulled it together. Behind the list, behind the ISO partnership, this is still the case. Without the commitment of able individuals who fully understand the cost of commitment, this means does not work. Even HTMLers have to admit that unless Andreesen and whoever else had not forced hands, we might have a different world today. As I said, sometimes someone has to go BerserkerOnTheBridge and sometimes, a whole division has to knock them off the bridge. It isn't always a courtly game and those with courtly reputations preserve them often by withdrawing from the conflict and letting knights take the hard blows so they can then re-emerge, spread their courtly wisdom, and bow out unsullied and with the appearance of accomplishment. Caveat Emptor. Last summer, we redebated the VRML process issues as certain powers were unhappy with certain decisions. We came to a good compromise that ensured progress without giving into a central polity that could ignore the lists at will. Some folks are still unhappy about the results and wanted to overturn the votes. It came down to Neal Trevett, President, standing up and saying, "nope, they voted, we heel". And on we go. At any time, that could all change. Attention is required. It is easy to create when the eyes of the world are elsewhere. Real time improvisation is tough. It takes practice and grounding in theory with real chops. Experience counts. Style counts. Above all, butts in seats count. No butts = no applause = no $. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: KenNorth [mailto:KenNorth@e...] Would the community process be the vehicle for accomplishing what VRML developers accomplished -- low barriers to entry and a freely-downloadable ISO spec? 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
