Comments on: Davos Newbies Home

By: Danny

Danny — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

For a start, I don’t think Ben’s involvement in a format (RSS 1.0) that is likely to be obsoleted by Atom is really a show stopper.

What’s more, there don’t appear to be any posts from Ben on the Atom mailing list (looking in my Outlook folder), though there are 50+ from Dave. A search on the Wiki for Ben’s contributions shows 2, for Dave’s shows 5. Dave has proposed an RSS basis for Atom (which prompted the Guardian piece). Given the nature of the Atom project, this all suggests that Dave is actually a much more active contributor to the Atom project than Ben.

As for Rogers’ catalog of errors – they are all debatable points. btw, didn’t he recently write a book on Userland software? His conflict of interest would be declared where exactly?

I am an active supporter of the Atom effort, and although the adhocracy isn’t perfect there is at least some direct community input. Nobody gets their own way all of the time (e.g. I wanted it to be RDF/XML), but everyone can contribute, Dave included.

Ok, let’s say for a moment that Ben’s viewpoint is biased. Did you consider that the article may still be essentially accurate?

By: Lance Knobel

Lance Knobel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Neither Dave nor Rogers wrote — or, as far as I know, have any plans to write — a report on the RSS/Atom debate. I’d think it wrong for them to do so.

I would have no problem with Ben writing a piece of advocacy, as opposed to a straight report. I think that’s what he’s done, but it was presented under the guise of objectivity.

By: Ken MacLeod

Ken MacLeod — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

There is almost no overlap in the leadership of Atom and RSS 1.0 — at most, myself, and for a time, Aaron Swartz. There’s only a slightly larger overlap between those who favor both RSS 1.0 and Atom.

Atom grew almost wholly out of efforts working on RSS 0.9x/2.0 and APIs.

By: Danny

Danny — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Lance, I’m not sure that involvement automatically renders objective reporting impossible. Ben’s direct involvement was with RSS 1.0, which is in part at least declared : “Ben Hammersley is author of O’Reilly’s Content Syndication with RSS.”. You’re asserting that he’s advocating Atom, not RSS 1.0. As a conflict of interest that seems rather cockeyed.

By: Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Lance Knobel writes: As Cadenhead notes, Hammersley was deeply involved in the development of RSS 1.0, the “faction” that seems to have led to the development of Atom.

Sadly, Mr. Cadenhead has led you astray.

The RSS 1.0 specification was released December 6, 2000. Mr. Hammersley’s first post to the RSS 1.0 list was not until March 5, 2002 where informed us of a new module he had created, mod_streaming. Even then, the archives show he did little except inform us about work he was doing, like writing his book for O’Reilly and start an RSS news weblog.

Ben Hammersley was later added as a Working Group member, but this was after all major decisions had been made — he has not participated in any substantive votes on the format.

In short, the record shows Hammersley had almost no involvement with the development of RSS 1.0; he certainly was not “deeply involved” as you wrote.

Furthermore, as Ken MacLeod has noted, there is little evidence for the claim that the “RSS 1.0 faction” led to the development of Atom. Atom’s creation was led by Mark Pilgrim, Sam Ruby, and Joe Gregorio. As far as I can tell, none of these three were involved with or even supporters of RSS 1.0.

I hope you will correct your piece and reconsider your conclusions.

Aaron Swartz
Highland Park, IL

The author is a member of the RSS 1.0 Working Group and co-author of the RSS 1.0 specification.