Re: [Gnue] RE: [xbrl-public] Requesting an official report on GL schema

[vio]

First, thanks to Todd for raising up this issue. Two weeks ago I had no
idea what an XBRL eats in winter (now I still don't but then I only skimmed
the www.xbrl.org site).

Second, the XBRL effort seems to have quite a few heavy commercial names in its corner, united by the shared interest of a common biz data reporting protocol. Could XBRL become the biz data reporting equivalent of TCP/IP ? The union of these heavy commercial interests and Todd's comments may suggest that XBRL may not be conceived in a true "open source" spirit (just my first impression).

My comment is that if XBRL does not appear to be "open enough", and doesn't project that image of crystal-clear transparency, true GNU-grade open source initiatives will of course enter this space and challenge XBRL's run for hegemony. This will translate in wasteful effort duplications, which are best avoided, we all agree on this (I mean, one TCP/IP standard is enough, so one biz data standard should be enough as well; the rest is just politics).
I hope XBRL participants are aware of the silent power of the open source movement (the sleeping giant ?), and instead of challenging it, do open up and cooperate with it, be part of it. One first step to do that is to embrace its way of doing things: no closed doors, put everything in the open for all to see. Our business model here should be to freely and openly cooperate on development and to make our money (as we all have to eat) on customization, servicing, etc. If you just want to steal the whole pie all for yourselves, these days you probably won't go very far.

My two cents,
Vio
 
 

"Coffin, Zachary P" wrote:

 Todd, Hi. First, I said you were way off in left-fied with your remarks that XBRL is trying to keep its membership to a minimum so we can maximize consulting fees.  That's wrong, and there's no excuse for you to make such accusations.... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Boyle [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:47 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: [xbrl-public] Requesting an official report on GL schema
 

 

The message of Zack Coffin should raise alarms, both inside
the XBRL and among the general public.

> Todd, you're way off in left-field on this
> one and just guessing where the ball is.

Yes-- since the XBRL has never published a single word or sentence
about its plans for the General Ledger schema.  Without paying
the $5000 plus $2000 per meeting, flying to XBRL meetings,
usually on the East Coast, there is no way for anybody outside
the XBRL to know anything about your General Ledger schema.
Isn't that convenient?  It allows you, the official representative
of XBRL, to lampoon the public.

> >> I'm having great fun with this-- prove me wrong. Publish your work in
> progress.
>
> You may be having fun poking us with irresponsible statements but I just
> don't have the time.  It's 4:41 a.m., I've got a plane to catch.  Let's
> start again, Todd; per Derek's suggestion, please ask single issue
> questions, and I'll respond.  Thanks again for your continued interest.
>
> Regards to all,
> Zack

Asking an organization the size of XBRL to post its
work in progress is not irresponsible.  It is the XBRL, and this
representative, who are irresponsible, and unresponsive.

The message of Zack Coffin is a perfect example of the level of
priority that the XBRL committees place in informing the public.
I.E., it is our problem to make simple digested questions, and then,
you might flick us an answer if you have time at 4 AM before
catching a flight to your important client matters.
...