[linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on control ramping]

[RonKuper at Cakewalk.com]

>>>
In this context it's seems a little ridiculous that the MMA is requiring 
members of the mailing list to sign on with $450.
<<<

The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES.  Do
you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues, and
that they too hold evolving standards discussions for members only?  How
does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that dues
be waived?

>>>
Applying closed methods of communication, or at least requiring a sum of 
money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling 
us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are 
doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in.
<<<

This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of
understanding.  This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a
standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these
cost money.  Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to
interoperate with the  major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum
where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it.

Also, the plan is for this process to not be completely closed.  We're
working on a process whose openness is new to the MMA, but similar in nature
to other standards organizations.  The current plan is to have 4 phases:

[1] Requirements gathering.  This will be open to any developer who wants to
register on an email reflector.  This phase will start as early as next
week, and will last several months, I suspect.

[2] Design.  This will be open to MMA members only.  If you want the legal
protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
"stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining.  Even some open-source
developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
selling a very small number of units.

[3] Review.  This will be public like phase 1.  We'll probably have several
iterations of 2 and 3.

[4] Adoption.  Once again, private to MMA members only.

IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort.  That gives us
2 standards, and nobody wins.

-Ron