----- Original Message -----
From: "Jenn V." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [issues] Standards?? PHOOEY!!!
> JoAnne Abbott wrote:
>
> > Since Ms Rosenberg did indeed offend me with the language I will
> > attempt to reply civilly.
>
> .
>
> Could you define the difference between a protocol and a standard?
A protocol is a generalised consensus of the way something is done.
A standard is so many meters, liters or lines of code.
> And could you perhaps please explain how a protocol can be maintained, and
> assorted innovations _openly_ included in the protocol, without some
person
> or people to maintain it?
>
> And while you're at it, tell us who should appoint these maintainers? At
> present, they're done on the ad-hoc basis of 'ok, I've got time and this
> seems reasonably important, I'll maintain this bit' - thus the person who
> actually goes ahead and _DOES THE JOB_ gets to .. uh .. do the job.
I have no difficulty with the implementation or maintenance of protocols
as I have said, they are agreements.
> > Point C. The Biggie. ALL those standards prevent innovation. Problem?
Naw
> > just add another layer or reset the standards to hide it.
>
> If this bothers you, go right ahead and make a new internet - or whatever
> it
> is that you want. Of course, if you don't interact with the current
> protocols
> and standards, you'll wind up in the same situation that MSN did, before
it
> accepted that The People preferred choice.
>
> Unless you do something truly useful, as well as innovative.
AAAHHH a rephrasing of what I said.
> Yes, innovation requires experimentation. Yes, experimentation can be
> inhibited
> by standards. Standards committees are slow and careful because their main
> function is reliability, not innovation.
another rephrasing. I agree!
> But absolutely _noone_ is stopping you from innovating on your own
machine,
Don't know where this came from.
> or
> your own LAN; testing it, and making it reliable. Then - if and only if
you
> actually
> /want/ it to be included in the standard - taking it to the relevent
> standards
> committee.
> The committee will ask you to prove its usefulness, help them define the
> adjustments
> to the standard, and other such things. But that's the cost of taking
> innovation
> into the marketplace.
After 40 years in the market place I no longer have the desire for
flagellation.
> > JoAnne Abbott C.E.T. MSEE, DSM
>
> Ahem.
>
> <sarcasm> Lots of letters after her name. I'm impressed.
> </sarcasm>
Yes it was intended to be a sarcastic subtle poke for the remark that I
"Dont know jack shit"
> Is this an attempt to use the 'appeal-to-authority' logical
> fallacy?
(shudder) NO!
> Jenn V.
> --
I guess my point was missed in the main part.
The constant clamor for more standards and the finger pointing when a
standard is violated seems to me to be more of a noise of someone is
doing something that makes my work harder. All without stating why this
is bad except that it violates a standard.
To summarise my original post, which I thought the examples would be
self explanatory.
Well based standards are good for a less chaotic and more profitable
environment.
Even the best standards (inhibit, straitjacket, prevent) (choose one or add
yours)
innovation.
Standards are for the past or present. Innovation is for the future.
JoAnne Abbott C.E.T.
To meditate on;
Which gift of the gods benefit humanity the most?
Fire or Ice cream
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
