3 ms·

why use this instead of open standards that exist? full disclosure I’m the primary author of OpenCannabis — the other open standard for the legal industry. ed

why use this instead of open standards that exist? full disclosure I’m the primary author of OpenCannabis — the other open standard for the legal industry. edit: learn more @ https://GitHub.com/OpenCannabis https://GitHub.com/OpenCannabis

sgammon 5y ago
Also, Would you guys be down to collaborate? Open standards are great. We’ve got some significant buy in. But fracturing this into multiple specs has a risk of making it worse instead of better.
- openthc 5y ago
  absoultly. djb@ this handle .com -- please hit me up. We didn't see you when we started this stuff (c2014). Also, your site https://opencannabis.info/ https://opencannabis.info/ is offline. edit: I see, you used to be BloomBox which looks like it died; perhaps that is how we missed each other.
  - sgammon 5y ago
    yeah, we haven't had a website for some time. i should drop that link, thanks for reporting :) all of the latest collaboration is happening here: https://github.com/CookiesCo/OpenCannabis https://github.com/CookiesCo/OpenCannabis
  - sgammon 5y ago
    also, shout out to the Buf guys: https://buf.build/ocpx/protocol/docs https://buf.build/ocpx/protocol/docs
sgammon 5y ago
As a reply to my own comment -- you can take it fwiw as someone in your exact position in this exact industry -- buy-in is the wrong way to look at it. I had also been thinking that way and got the same reaction from the marketplace when this was first proposed in 2014. Since then, working on point solutions which solve real problems for market actors has been the main strategy and that has worked really well. There are circumstances where cannabis companies must collaborate, but they aren't every circumstance. Adopting someone else's datamodel wholesale feels, to an innovative market player, like an abdication of their duty to understand their own product. So, instead of replacing things, we add now, and adopt and include specifications that "just work" or have become defacto standards.

sgammon 5y ago

Also, Would you guys be down to collaborate? Open standards are great. We’ve got some significant buy in. But fracturing this into multiple specs has a risk of making it worse instead of better.

openthc 5y ago
absoultly. djb@ this handle .com -- please hit me up. We didn't see you when we started this stuff (c2014). Also, your site https://opencannabis.info/ https://opencannabis.info/ is offline. edit: I see, you used to be BloomBox which looks like it died; perhaps that is how we missed each other.
- sgammon 5y ago
  yeah, we haven't had a website for some time. i should drop that link, thanks for reporting :) all of the latest collaboration is happening here: https://github.com/CookiesCo/OpenCannabis https://github.com/CookiesCo/OpenCannabis
- sgammon 5y ago
  also, shout out to the Buf guys: https://buf.build/ocpx/protocol/docs https://buf.build/ocpx/protocol/docs

sgammon 5y ago

As a reply to my own comment -- you can take it fwiw as someone in your exact position in this exact industry -- buy-in is the wrong way to look at it. I had also been thinking that way and got the same reaction from the marketplace when this was first proposed in 2014. Since then, working on point solutions which solve real problems for market actors has been the main strategy and that has worked really well. There are circumstances where cannabis companies must collaborate, but they aren't every circumstance. Adopting someone else's datamodel wholesale feels, to an innovative market player, like an abdication of their duty to understand their own product. So, instead of replacing things, we add now, and adopt and include specifications that "just work" or have become defacto standards.