[OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed "GeoServices REST API" document [was: Would you be concerned ...]

[Miles Fidelman]

Adrian Custer wrote:
> On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
>>> Hey Cameron, all,
>>>
>> ...
>>>     * The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
>>>       alternative way forwards.
>>
>> I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
>> better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
>> viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a "take it or
>> leave it" (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
>> do anyway.

Out of curiosity, how does this compare to the process by which KML 
became an OGC standard?

>
> This is a good example of the limits of governance at the OGC. Really, 
> a standard should not pass when there is concerted opposition to it. 
> The process is designed to suspend when there is opposition (2 no 
> votes), in an effort to build consensus. However, the ultimate 
> decision is still a 50% + 1 vote; probably, it should be a 
> super-majority of some kind.
>
I've always found the OGC process to be rather broken.  But then I'm a 
big fan of the IETF approach - bottom up, "rough consensus and running 
code," a progression from experimental to recommended to mandatory, but 
only after a long incubation period - and don't even think of using the 
word standard until there are at least 2 interoperable implementations.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra