Dave Winer opines:

I've been posting this question on various weblogs and in private emails. The question is this. Why not add language to the spec that says it's okay for an RSS feed to include elements not defined in the spec, and leave it at that.

Please. God. No.

• Pretty much every element of RSS0.94 is optional, and can be left out. If you also allow arbitrary elements to be added, do you have a specification any more?
• In the RSS 0.9x series, a valid version 0.9x document is also a valid 0.9x+1 document. If you allow arbitrary elements you break this contract, or at least make it impossible to add new elements to the specification. Each added element becomes a redefining of a previously permitted but undefined element.
• It would discourage the adoption of RSS modules (for which there are already a good set of defined standards, and which can be mixed and matched) in favour of a hundred splintered dialects of the core RSS, which may be mutually incompatible.

Oh, and ten points for someone who can tell me where this post's title (Babble out in simile, since the titles are only visible in my RSS feed) comes from, without using Google.

[The Desktop Fishbowl]

» I think Charles is spot on with all three of his arguments.

• It weakens the specification.
• It breaks an implied contract.
• It fails to set a standard.

The background to this appears to be a quest to "nail RSS once and for all."  I don't understand that.  What's wrong with it evolving over time and as requirements change?

(Oh and zero points for me!)

You may want to check out Tempered Radicals by Debra Meyerson. She writes about the experiences of people who have decided to create change within a work place that doesn't match their values rather than leave the company. She focuses mostly on creating change on issues such as diversity, fair-trade products, family-friendly work hours, etc. However, I think the strategies that she discusses are just as valid and useful for trying to move an organization towards a more knowledge-based organizational culture.

Her key themes are: leading by example, small early wins, turning threats into change opportunities, and taking a long view. No quick fixes, I'm afraid.

[High Context]

» Effective take up of knowledge management practices is going to have to go hand-in-hand with organisational development.  Interestingly at yesterdays Knowledge Cafe meeting one of the topics that came up was strategies for persuading decision makers that Knowledge Management was even worth investing in.  This was a slightlly disappointing revelation as I had hoped the battle lines were drawn a little further forward than that.