[Gnue] Re: Participation RE: [xbrl-public] XBRL book proposal

[Derek A. Neighbors]

Comments within:

> I am just as busy as you or any other member of XBRL.  I have invested many 
> hundreds of >hours of my time just as you have. I contributed a
> series of XML schemas for general ledger to the XBRL in June, July and 
> August.   So don't >tell me everybody in the XBRL is too fatigued to
> answer email .  These are substantive issues. 

Reading and answering are different.  I know I always read your mails
and most of the time have questions on some of it or think points are
worthy of debating.  However, I dont like to answer in partial form, but
usually dont have the necessary time to respond to a whole mail.  May I
suggest keeping a simple rule of thumb if its more than a page its
probably not gonna get as many responses as you would like.  It would be
better to keep under a page and send two or three mails if there are
that many points to cover.

> You guys seem to think you can sit in your private meetings and cook up 
> standards we will >all happily accept.  You are wrong.   Nobody can even
> understand your XBRL stuff.  I waste my breath, trying to get my clients and 
> other >software developers, to read it.  Everybody turns away, and
> builds incompatible stuff in python, java, and perl (GNUE, FERMS, SQL-Ledger) 
> and those >are only the tip of a very large iceberg. 
>

I am not familiar with XBRL, but if this is true its definitely no waya
to go about doing any kind of business.  If you are not getting buy in
and feedback from the layers using the thing you are destined to fail.
  
> I have no evidence why XBRL does not engage in public discussion about the 
> designs of its >schema .  The XBRL Spec (1.2) states  that the spec
> is written primarily to advance the interests of users rather than vendors-- 
> then why >don't you listen to, or speak with, your customers and
> users?   One  possible reason is to keep  the number of  personal and 
> corporate names on >the boilerplate of the XBRL schema  to a minimum,  to
> maximize future consulting money.  

I have yet to see a standard outside of some rare network ones
(TCP/IP,DNS,etc) that are not advancing the interests of a VENDOR.  This
is and will probably always be part of the problem.  
  
> I'm having great fun with this-- prove me wrong. Publish your work in 
> progress.  Publish >your developers' lists. 

If its going there, who owns copyright to this specification?  If its a
"board" or "committee"  who sits on it?  Whom is protecting the interest
of the little guy?  
  
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org
address@hidden