🚀 go-pugleaf

Marvin,

thank you for a nicely-reasoned note about object standards. I wanted to
respond to one element of your commentary: speculation about why the
standards process has shifted from selecting among options from de facto
"tried and true" methods to "ab initio" standards, usually developed by
committees committed to standards-making.

In the last 15 years, product and service providers have come to recognize
the commercial value of standards. However, standardization stimulates
competition. As a result, the vendor world has incentives for the following
kinds of behavior:

1. avoid adopting a competitor's "standard" because it puts you on the
   disadvantaged side of the ledger (the competitor has already implemented
   it).

2. avoid agreeing to a standard until you are ready to productize based on it

3. try to assure that the standard puts all competitors at equal disadvantage.

I am sure you can think of more examples. I don't mean either to be cynical
nor to chastise the vendor community, since I believe these behaviors are
rational in the marketplace if disappointing from a more lofty, academic
perspective. But I think it helps to appreciate the shift in the way in
which standards are viewed.

Since there are a lot of other people participating in this discussion,
I would be quite interested to hear if others disagree with the view
expressed above. 

Since this topic is not exactly aligned with the substance of MMM-PEOPLE,
perhaps these comments could be sent to me directly to avoid boring folks
who would prefer to concentrate on the technical debate.


Vint