3 ms·

Sorry to put it this way but what revenue hit? Who exactly is so stupid they'd pay for this standard that nobody asked for, nobody needs, and very few people ca

by pc86 3y ago

Sorry to put it this way but what revenue hit? Who exactly is so stupid they'd pay for this standard that nobody asked for, nobody needs, and very few people care about?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Someone has to organize conferences and protocols for voting, and organize the documents and get them published. Nothing is free, someone has to organize things. The alternative is what? Open Source? Where anybody can fork anything. One person puts out a standard, then another and another and suddenly there is no standard there is just a giant pile of one-off hacks. Any Open Source project that has amounted to anything, guess what, has funding, and an organization. Some gatekeeper to make sure there is one truth. Would SQL Exists today without some 'standards' body : "as standardized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) "
- pc86 3y ago
  > The alternative is what? Open Source? Where anybody can fork anything. One person puts out a standard, then another and another and suddenly there is no standard there is just a giant pile of one-off hacks. Tell me you don't understand open source software without telling me. Major OSS projects today have funding and corporate backing because the popularity earns you money. Not all major OSS projects start with funding and corporate backing (though some certainly do and that can be a leg up if it's done with good intention).
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Exactly. Popular ones are funded. The point was everyone was complaining about paying for a publication. But how do you fund publishing without paying? Everyone expects 'standards' to be free, but don't they take time and effort and organization? GQL has existed for long time, as open source, and has evolved, with a community. But eventually there is a need to 'pay' to get funding, and industry backing to grow further. And a standards organization is valuable in doing that. Complaining it isn't 'free' is the wrong part.

by pc86 3y ago

Sorry to put it this way but what revenue hit? Who exactly is so stupid they'd pay for this standard that nobody asked for, nobody needs, and very few people care about?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Someone has to organize conferences and protocols for voting, and organize the documents and get them published. Nothing is free, someone has to organize things. The alternative is what? Open Source? Where anybody can fork anything. One person puts out a standard, then another and another and suddenly there is no standard there is just a giant pile of one-off hacks. Any Open Source project that has amounted to anything, guess what, has funding, and an organization. Some gatekeeper to make sure there is one truth. Would SQL Exists today without some 'standards' body : "as standardized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) "

pc86 3y ago
> The alternative is what? Open Source? Where anybody can fork anything. One person puts out a standard, then another and another and suddenly there is no standard there is just a giant pile of one-off hacks. Tell me you don't understand open source software without telling me. Major OSS projects today have funding and corporate backing because the popularity earns you money. Not all major OSS projects start with funding and corporate backing (though some certainly do and that can be a leg up if it's done with good intention).
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Exactly. Popular ones are funded. The point was everyone was complaining about paying for a publication. But how do you fund publishing without paying? Everyone expects 'standards' to be free, but don't they take time and effort and organization? GQL has existed for long time, as open source, and has evolved, with a community. But eventually there is a need to 'pay' to get funding, and industry backing to grow further. And a standards organization is valuable in doing that. Complaining it isn't 'free' is the wrong part.