@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social: 5/ People are of course able to decide for themselves which of №1, №2, and №3 they feel are acceptable scenarios for publishing specifications under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), but — But, I feel only №1 and №2 are acceptable scenarios. I.e., I feel that specifications published under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), should be DOCUMENTING not inventing. ...

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @reiver@mastodon.social
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:32:56)
4/

An example of №3 is ERC-223.

ERC-223 was meant as a replacement for ERC-20. A single person invented ERC-223 without involving all the people who implemented or were using ERC-20.

ERC-223 was largely ignored.
---Reply---
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:38:05)
5/

People are of course able to decide for themselves which of №1, №2, and №3 they feel are acceptable scenarios for publishing specifications under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), but —

But, I feel only №1 and №2 are acceptable scenarios.

I.e., I feel that specifications published under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP), should be DOCUMENTING not inventing.

...


---Replies---

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-05-02 00:40:23)
6/

That doesn't mean inventing has no value. (It does.)

But, I feel that the repository of specifications under organizational bodies (e.g., IETF) and community groups (e.g., FEP) are not the place for them.

.