{ "attachments": [], "comments_archived": true, "date": "2003-10-14T15:05:34.000Z", "layout": "post", "title": "When RSS Developers Attack", "wordpress_id": 496, "wordpress_slug": "when-rss-attacks", "wordpress_url": "http://www.decafbad.com/blog/?p=496", "year": "2003", "month": "10", "day": "14", "isDir": false, "slug": "when-rss-attacks", "type": "entry", "postName": "2003-10-14-when-rss-attacks", "html": "
\n

I agree with Derek Balling [who criticized Foo Camp], and when you come back to earth, I bet you will too Jeremy.

\n

Did I read that you guys had meetings about RSS? At a private invitation-only event? Do you realize how WRONG that is?

\n
\n\n\n
Source:Dave Winer in a comment on \"Some Foo Camp Links\"\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n

One of the sessions on Sunday morning at FOO Camp was a brainstorming session on how a site could provide a list of feeds.

\n

...A working name for this effort is \"FDML\". The stands for Feed (Discovery / Directory / Detailing) Markup Language, depending on who you ask. ;-)

\n
\n\n\n
Source:Sam Ruby: FDML\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n

Just so it is absolutely clear: all I have done is listed a set of requirements, many if not most of which are directly from Jeremy himself. The acronym was suggested by David Sifry.

\n

People are welcome to question, refine, or add to the requirements, or present proposals on how these requirements can best be implemented. Perhaps even with OPML.

\n
\n\n\n
Source:A later comment on Sam Ruby: FDML\n\n
\n\n\n\n

\nFor anyone who wonders why people talk about politics and animosity in\nthe tiny sphere of web syndication tech, here's a case in point.\n

\n\n

\nYou see, there was a private event over the weekend, called Foo Camp.\nTo this, many smart people were invited, and many more weren't.\nGrousing about invitations, funding, and elitism aside, it sounded\nlike a great time and a cool change from your average conference. I\nhope it turns into a regular event, and hope that someday I'm given\nthe opportunity to go to something like it. I'm sure a lot of us\nout here would like to make it to something like that.\n

\n\n

\nBut, for what it was, you can only gather so many people before it\nbecomes a circus (or a conference). Charging a price serves as a\nlimiter, while making the event invitation-only works as well. The\ndifference is whether you're bringing in people who can afford it\nversus people who are favored by the organizer. Either way, someone's\ngoing to be pissed about not going. The difference is whether you're\npissed off at the organizer's economics or the organizer's\npersonality. Oh well.\n

\n\n

\nSo anyway, around mid-September, Jeremy Zawodny had floated\nan idea\ninvolving publishing and discovery of lists of RSS feeds.\nHe was one of those invited to Foo Camp, and in one of their\nhuddles, he brought the idea up for a brainstorming session.\nFrom the sounds of it, they tossed around a few ideas, but\ndidn't really come up with much other than that it was an idea\nworth discussing.\n

\n\n

\nNo sooner than the camp breaks up, though, and the angry buzz\nhas already started. How dare a bunch of geeks talk about\ntechnology they're interested in while at a private gathering?\nHow dare they not invite all of us? Conspiracy! Elitism!\nThey didn't pick me for their kickball team! By the way,\nthis isn't an attempt to put words in mouths. This is my\noff-the-cuff impression of what I read yesterday. It all\nseems repeatedly and unnecessarily childish to me, and it's\ncertainly not limited to one person.\n

\n\n

\nSo, by today, there's already\na wiki\ndevoted to exploring this idea, along with a scattering of blog\nposts. This seems pretty speedy to me,\nconsidering campers returning to the work-a-day world after\na geek retreat. This doesn't seem at all the work of a sinister\ncabal bent on wresting control and domination over a technology,\nas what I saw implied in the first comment I quoted above.\n

\n\n

\nDave Winer's already posted a\nfirst proposal\ntoward implementing the idea. And, believe it or not, as Sam comments\non above, this approach has not been ruled out. In fact,\nJeremy had suggested using OPML in his original posting of the idea.\n

\n\n

\nWhy couldn't we just have seen the collaboration without the\nantagonism, in at least this case? Yeah, there was a small, private\ngathering at which discussions were had. Sounds like what happens at\nwork, or with friends, or in classes. Granted, I suppose an argument\ncould be made concerning the relative openness of these gatherings as\ncompared to Foo Camp. But, this is mooted by the fact that the\npeople involved were already moving toward sharing the discussion.\n

\n\n

\nFor all the grousing about flame wars and personality clashes on\nmailing lists and working groups, sometimes it's nice to work on an\nidea in a smaller group with a good dynamic. It helps to get\nsomething together before throwing the doors open to have the thing\nbuffeted by opinions and criticism from all sides. It's one way to\navoid \"stop\nenergy\" while trying to build some momentum.\n

\n\n

\nAs Dave himself wrote, \"I heard at a working group meeting that things\nlike SOAP can only happen when no one is paying attention.\" So, it\nsounds like a bunch of geeks tried to get something rolling before the\nattentional heat lamps turned on it. Had they wanted to be a sinister\ncabal, we certainly wouldn't have heard about any of this until long,\nlong after the event. It would have been kept behind closed corporate\ndoors until the day of embrace-and-extend. Then, profit! As it is, I\nthink they erred on the side of throwing open the discussion\ntoo early.\n

\n\n

\nSo anyway, the reason I write at such length about this is that I\ndon't think that this should be let to pass without comment or\nconsideration. This kind of thing is what's wrong. We need to take\nat least three deep breaths before reacting like this, whether\nor not we've taken 900 beep breaths in the past already. It's the\nnature of these things. As an interested but outside observer, the\natmosphere created by such reactions makes me very sad. And it's not\njust one person doing this, either.\n

\n\n

\nSo, chill out. It's just data. In fact, the proposal at question\nhere is just a friggen outline of feeds! It's just a list of\nlists! Most of the geeks out there just want to play, and are happy\nto have more geeks to play with. Can't we just get along and play the\ngame together, rather than gaming each other?\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

shortname=when_rss_attacks

\n

Archived Comments

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n", "body": "
\r\n

I agree with Derek Balling [who criticized Foo Camp], and when you come back to earth, I bet you will too Jeremy.

\r\n

Did I read that you guys had meetings about RSS? At a private invitation-only event? Do you realize how WRONG that is?

\r\n
\r\n
Source:Dave Winer in a comment on \"Some Foo Camp Links\"
\r\n\r\n
\r\n

One of the sessions on Sunday morning at FOO Camp was a brainstorming session on how a site could provide a list of feeds.

\r\n

...A working name for this effort is \"FDML\". The stands for Feed (Discovery / Directory / Detailing) Markup Language, depending on who you ask. ;-)

\r\n
\r\n
Source:Sam Ruby: FDML
\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Just so it is absolutely clear: all I have done is listed a set of requirements, many if not most of which are directly from Jeremy himself. The acronym was suggested by David Sifry.

\r\n

People are welcome to question, refine, or add to the requirements, or present proposals on how these requirements can best be implemented. Perhaps even with OPML.

\r\n
\r\n
Source:A later comment on Sam Ruby: FDML
\r\n\r\n

\r\nFor anyone who wonders why people talk about politics and animosity in\r\nthe tiny sphere of web syndication tech, here's a case in point.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nYou see, there was a private event over the weekend, called Foo Camp.\r\nTo this, many smart people were invited, and many more weren't.\r\nGrousing about invitations, funding, and elitism aside, it sounded\r\nlike a great time and a cool change from your average conference. I\r\nhope it turns into a regular event, and hope that someday I'm given\r\nthe opportunity to go to something like it. I'm sure a lot of us\r\nout here would like to make it to something like that.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nBut, for what it was, you can only gather so many people before it\r\nbecomes a circus (or a conference). Charging a price serves as a\r\nlimiter, while making the event invitation-only works as well. The\r\ndifference is whether you're bringing in people who can afford it\r\nversus people who are favored by the organizer. Either way, someone's\r\ngoing to be pissed about not going. The difference is whether you're\r\npissed off at the organizer's economics or the organizer's\r\npersonality. Oh well.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nSo anyway, around mid-September, Jeremy Zawodny had floated\r\nan idea\r\ninvolving publishing and discovery of lists of RSS feeds.\r\nHe was one of those invited to Foo Camp, and in one of their\r\nhuddles, he brought the idea up for a brainstorming session.\r\nFrom the sounds of it, they tossed around a few ideas, but\r\ndidn't really come up with much other than that it was an idea\r\nworth discussing.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nNo sooner than the camp breaks up, though, and the angry buzz\r\nhas already started. How dare a bunch of geeks talk about\r\ntechnology they're interested in while at a private gathering?\r\nHow dare they not invite all of us? Conspiracy! Elitism!\r\nThey didn't pick me for their kickball team! By the way,\r\nthis isn't an attempt to put words in mouths. This is my\r\noff-the-cuff impression of what I read yesterday. It all\r\nseems repeatedly and unnecessarily childish to me, and it's\r\ncertainly not limited to one person.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nSo, by today, there's already\r\na wiki\r\ndevoted to exploring this idea, along with a scattering of blog\r\nposts. This seems pretty speedy to me,\r\nconsidering campers returning to the work-a-day world after\r\na geek retreat. This doesn't seem at all the work of a sinister\r\ncabal bent on wresting control and domination over a technology,\r\nas what I saw implied in the first comment I quoted above.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nDave Winer's already posted a\r\nfirst proposal\r\ntoward implementing the idea. And, believe it or not, as Sam comments\r\non above, this approach has not been ruled out. In fact,\r\nJeremy had suggested using OPML in his original posting of the idea.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nWhy couldn't we just have seen the collaboration without the\r\nantagonism, in at least this case? Yeah, there was a small, private\r\ngathering at which discussions were had. Sounds like what happens at\r\nwork, or with friends, or in classes. Granted, I suppose an argument\r\ncould be made concerning the relative openness of these gatherings as\r\ncompared to Foo Camp. But, this is mooted by the fact that the\r\npeople involved were already moving toward sharing the discussion.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nFor all the grousing about flame wars and personality clashes on\r\nmailing lists and working groups, sometimes it's nice to work on an\r\nidea in a smaller group with a good dynamic. It helps to get\r\nsomething together before throwing the doors open to have the thing\r\nbuffeted by opinions and criticism from all sides. It's one way to\r\navoid \"stop\r\nenergy\" while trying to build some momentum.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nAs Dave himself wrote, \"I heard at a working group meeting that things\r\nlike SOAP can only happen when no one is paying attention.\" So, it\r\nsounds like a bunch of geeks tried to get something rolling before the\r\nattentional heat lamps turned on it. Had they wanted to be a sinister\r\ncabal, we certainly wouldn't have heard about any of this until long,\r\nlong after the event. It would have been kept behind closed corporate\r\ndoors until the day of embrace-and-extend. Then, profit! As it is, I\r\nthink they erred on the side of throwing open the discussion\r\ntoo early.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nSo anyway, the reason I write at such length about this is that I\r\ndon't think that this should be let to pass without comment or\r\nconsideration. This kind of thing is what's wrong. We need to take\r\nat least three deep breaths before reacting like this, whether\r\nor not we've taken 900 beep breaths in the past already. It's the\r\nnature of these things. As an interested but outside observer, the\r\natmosphere created by such reactions makes me very sad. And it's not\r\njust one person doing this, either.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nSo, chill out. It's just data. In fact, the proposal at question\r\nhere is just a friggen outline of feeds! It's just a list of\r\nlists! Most of the geeks out there just want to play, and are happy\r\nto have more geeks to play with. Can't we just get along and play the\r\ngame together, rather than gaming each other?\r\n

\r\n\r\nshortname=when_rss_attacks\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Archived Comments

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n ", "parentPath": "./content/posts/archives/2003", "path": "2003/10/14/when-rss-attacks", "summary": "I agree with Derek Balling [who criticized Foo Camp], and when you come back to earth, I bet you will too Jeremy.\nDid I read that you guys had meetings about RSS? At a private invitation-only event? Do you realize how WRONG that is?\n\n\n\nSource:Dave Winer in a comment on \"Some Foo Camp Links\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOne of the sessions on Sunday morning at FOO Camp was a brainstorming session on how a site could provide a list of feeds.\n...A working name for this effort is \"FDML\". The stands for Feed (Discovery / Directory / Detailing) Markup Language, depending on who you ask. ;-)\n\n\n\nSource:Sam Ruby: FDML\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJust so it is absolutely clear: all I have done is listed a set of requirements, many if not most of which are directly from Jeremy himself. The acronym was suggested by David Sifry.\nPeople are welcome to question, refine, or add to the requirements, or present proposals on how these requirements can best be implemented. Perhaps even with OPML.\n\n\n\nSource:A later comment on Sam Ruby: FDML\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFor anyone who wonders why people talk about politics and animosity in\nthe tiny sphere of web syndication tech, here's a case in point.\n\n\n\nYou see, there was a private event over the weekend, called Foo Camp.\nTo this, many smart people were invited, and many more weren't.\nGrousing about invitations, funding, and elitism aside, it sounded\nlike a great time and a cool change from your average conference. I\nhope it turns into a regular event, and hope that someday I'm given\nthe opportunity to go to something like it. I'm sure a lot of us\nout here would like to make it to something like that.\n\n\n\nBut, for what it was, you can only gather so many people before it\nbecomes a circus (or a conference). Charging a price serves as a\nlimiter, while making the event invitation-only works as well. The\ndifference is whether you're bringing in people who can afford it\nversus people who are favored by the organizer. Either way, someone's\ngoing to be pissed about not going. The difference is whether you're\npissed off at the organizer's economics or the organizer's\npersonality. Oh well.\n\n\n\nSo anyway, around mid-September, Jeremy Zawodny had floated\nan idea\ninvolving publishing and discovery of lists of RSS feeds.\nHe was one of those invited to Foo Camp, and in one of their\nhuddles, he brought the idea up for a brainstorming session.\nFrom the sounds of it, they tossed around a few ideas, but\ndidn't really come up with much other than that it was an idea\nworth discussing.\n\n\n\nNo sooner than the camp breaks up, though, and the angry buzz\nhas already started. How dare a bunch of geeks talk about\ntechnology they're interested in while at a private gathering?\nHow dare they not invite all of us? Conspiracy! Elitism!\nThey didn't pick me for their kickball team! By the way,\nthis isn't an attempt to put words in mouths. This is my\noff-the-cuff impression of what I read yesterday. It all\nseems repeatedly and unnecessarily childish to me, and it's\ncertainly not limited to one person.\n\n\n\nSo, by today, there's already\na wiki\ndevoted to exploring this idea, along with a scattering of blog\nposts. This seems pretty speedy to me,\nconsidering campers returning to the work-a-day world after\na geek retreat. This doesn't seem at all the work of a sinister\ncabal bent on wresting control and domination over a technology,\nas what I saw implied in the first comment I quoted above.\n\n\n\nDave Winer's already posted a\nfirst proposal\ntoward implementing the idea. And, believe it or not, as Sam comments\non above, this approach has not been ruled out. In fact,\nJeremy had suggested using OPML in his original posting of the idea.\n\n\n\nWhy couldn't we just have seen the collaboration without the\nantagonism, in at least this case? Yeah, there was a small, private\ngathering at which discussions were had. Sounds like what happens at\nwork, or with friends, or in classes. Granted, I suppose an argument\ncould be made concerning the relative openness of these gatherings as\ncompared to Foo Camp. But, this is mooted by the fact that the\npeople involved were already moving toward sharing the discussion.\n\n\n\nFor all the grousing about flame wars and personality clashes on\nmailing lists and working groups, sometimes it's nice to work on an\nidea in a smaller group with a good dynamic. It helps to get\nsomething together before throwing the doors open to have the thing\nbuffeted by opinions and criticism from all sides. It's one way to\navoid \"stop\nenergy\" while trying to build some momentum.\n\n\n\nAs Dave himself wrote, \"I heard at a working group meeting that things\nlike SOAP can only happen when no one is paying attention.\" So, it\nsounds like a bunch of geeks tried to get something rolling before the\nattentional heat lamps turned on it. Had they wanted to be a sinister\ncabal, we certainly wouldn't have heard about any of this until long,\nlong after the event. It would have been kept behind closed corporate\ndoors until the day of embrace-and-extend. Then, profit! As it is, I\nthink they erred on the side of throwing open the discussion\ntoo early.\n\n\n\nSo anyway, the reason I write at such length about this is that I\ndon't think that this should be let to pass without comment or\nconsideration. This kind of thing is what's wrong. We need to take\nat least three deep breaths before reacting like this, whether\nor not we've taken 900 beep breaths in the past already. It's the\nnature of these things. As an interested but outside observer, the\natmosphere created by such reactions makes me very sad. And it's not\njust one person doing this, either.\n\n\n\nSo, chill out. It's just data. In fact, the proposal at question\nhere is just a friggen outline of feeds! It's just a list of\nlists! Most of the geeks out there just want to play, and are happy\nto have more geeks to play with. Can't we just get along and play the\ngame together, rather than gaming each other?", "needsBuild": true, "prevPostPath": "2003/10/08/microcontent-and-rss-data", "prevPostTitle": "Microcontent and RSS-Data", "nextPostPath": "2003/10/16/seeing-out-opposites", "nextPostTitle": "Seeking Out Opposites" }