Josh wrote:

Jon Noring:

I just wanted to address the DP/PG TEI Working Subcommittee idea.

Probably not going to happen. Things tend happen like this around DP:

One or two people see something irritating they want to scratch badly enough to start working on it themselves. Then, they come up with a workable implementation that is put out as a "test" of some sort. It gets refined and used more and more until it becomes a defacto standard. (See our current proofing guidelines at DP for a prime example of this process.)

Well, that is the way things are currently done in DP. But if Charles and Juliet decide it is time to formalize some of the next generation system development, they will make it happen. The option to create a formal Working Group is always an option, and recommended at some stage, even if it is to simply "finish" what is currently being done by the various people individually hammering away at it and doing an excellent job (such as you and Marcello, among others.) Such a formal Working Group can attract some pretty sharp minds in the TEI, text conversion, and other related communities to contribute their time and energy and informed insights, and this has **many other tangible benefits** to the goals of the DP and PG projects besides just coming up with a workable TEI subset DP can use in its future activities: it is important not to ignore the human and social networking element in the equation, something which techno-geeks tend to overlook. For example, this gets "buy-in" to the DP/PG vision by many interested communities (it now becomes "their" project), and their many connections will greatly benefit DP and PG in its various activities, such as greatly improving the chances of Foundation and similar funding to help move DP's and PG's activities to the next level of production, quality and wider acceptance. DP and PG are volunteer activities -- it is best to do what is necessary to get the largest number of the sharpest volunteer minds, individual and organizational. Formalizing the various processes will help with attracting these volunteers -- they tend not to join movements which have no centralized authority and which don't try to forge close working relationships with many related communities. (PG is essentially rudderless in leadership by design, and does little effort to reach out to other well-known organizations to form strategic partnerships -- it acts as if the rest of the world does not exist. For example, has PG tried to form a close working alliance with DAISY so as to plugin with the accessibility community and to mobilize its help?) (Note that Mozilla is now exploding on the scene and making a huge impact with Firefox by competing directly with IE, and this is partly because it is coming together in a more formal, organized way -- the Mozilla Foundation -- with leadership which recognizes that even volunteer, open source projects which aspire to greatness need to be well-organized and to "network" closely with various recognized communities -- to play with the proverbial "Big Boys". I know the anarchist-oriented geeks here do not accept this assessment. For info on who serves on the Board of Directors of the Mozilla Foundation: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ . It includes Mitch Kapor, as the Chair.) For starters, why doesn't the PG Board of Trustees include some of the top names in the etext, library and digital archiving, accessibility, and public domain advocacy communities, all of whom support the purpose and goals of PG and DP? Why isn't Brewster Kahle, for example, on the Board? Why isn't there a representative of ALA on the Board? Why isn't George Kerscher of DAISY, or someone of his caliber in the accessibility community, on the Board? What about Larry Lessig or John Perry Barlow or Cory Doctorow? Having such a distinguished Board will open up all kinds of doors for PG including funding opportunities -- and this can be done without compromising any of the goals and vision of PG. Personally, I believe it will *attract* many more enthusiastic volunteers, too, and create new excitement. And the DP- produced texts will now become more important to many other organizations since they now have a more personal stake in the work product. Success breeds success; momentum is built. Anyway, this is getting off of the main topic of gutvol-d... Jon Noring