MattL.com

Matt, I understand your frustration but you're making up that time line. What's the point of doing that? Also, you're conflating two things: (1) compliance with the NAR MLS policy; and (2) development of the standard. That 1.7, the only current specification, is the target version for the June 2007 NAR MLS policy in no way defines the progress of the standard. As you and I have spoken before, there are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with RETS, like the reluctance of some to focus on schema and schema mapping, but nitpicking about 1.7 as the target for the NAR MLS policy is unnecessary and unproductive.

Mike, respectfully, I can only view this decision by the group as concession that progress overall is virtually stagnant.

Consider that 1.7 was adopted in 2004 -- we, as a community, are now stating that A) 6 years of RETS 2.0 hype has led to vaporware, and B) corrections to errata in the documentation is the best we can muster in another 2 years and 2.5 months.

As for the timeline, yes, it's speculative, but I would be hard-pressed to see it advance more quickly. For one, RETS 1.8 cannot become "the current standard" before the 6/09 deadline, so I assume that (if it's defined & finished) it will be approved at the next meeting. This action, of course, will invalidate all RETS 1.5 instances, since n-1 is the only accepted level of compliance, and all systems have exactly 1 year to implement the latest standard, per the NAR mandate.

Given this fact, it is impossible to put 1.9 any sooner than 1 year after 1.8, since that's the window of upgrade for existing systems. Given our current pace, it's infathomable that it could happen any sooner, anyway.

Finally, after 2 years of wading through 1.x revisions ad nauseam, I can't imagine anyone will have the brass to put 2.0 on the table any sooner than at least two years after 1.9, which would still only give the average implementation a one year layover before gutting architecture and supporting whatever 2.0 redefines.

If we can't move one minor build in five years, how on Earth will we do three more in two years? It's not gonna happen.

-Matt

You're conflating compliance with the NAR MLS policy with RETS progress. To use your examples, is it a failure of the Wi-Fi specs that many people still use 802.11b? Similarly, has the fact that many still use 802.11b kept the Wi-Fi standard from moving forward? I believe the answer to both of these questions is no, and I fully expect to see the RETS standards moving forward in the coming months regardless of what compliance is required for the NAR MLS policy.

The current RESO Board has been in place since December. We're working hard on trying to define a road map right now. I can assure you that the road map you've laid out above is nowhere near the reality we're envisioning. You know I have as much frustration with bureaucracy and slow-moving processes as you're expressing, and as I've mentioned here and on Twitter, the key issue for me is data schema and when that will be a requirement for MLS compliance with RETS. Other than that issue, I think it's largely irrelevant what might be "required" for certification (meeting the NAR MLS policy) and the real issue is what actually gets adopted in the marketplace. For example, I can easily see the project we're working on together becoming a standard very quickly and hopefully part of RETS as well. In my view, the best standards are demand, not mandate, driven. Here's another way to look at this: The NAR mandate is requiring RETS compliance and the "target" version is intended to reflect -- not mandate -- the most commonly deployed version. As new versions come along, adoption will determine when and whether the "target" version is moved. Is it possible that the "target" version can be used to encourage adoption? I suppose, but that's not the current intent and that also should not hold back progress of the standard.

I encourage you to come to the Board meeting in Philly on Wednesday morning at 8 a.m. where we're hoping to nail down a road map. Just don't bring ideas about some undefined 1.9 in December 2010, because, as you say, that "makes no sense."

Mike, first, I hope you recognize that my frustration lay with the standards body as a whole and not the RESO Board: Management, in this case, is hardly to blame because this decision is coming up from the technical stakeholders.

As for the coalescence of standards ratification and the NAR mandate, I don't see how these are so easily severed. The future decisions of the stakeholders will surely be influenced by the requirement to meet any new standard within one year -- I don't see "will comply" as rendering a lot of latitude on the issue, and most MLSes will be largely without choice because they are Realtor-owned. To compare it to the WiFi case is facetious, because the FCC has never mandated that vendors "stay current", so adoption was more organic -- driven by consumer demand and cost of implementation.

As for "the alternative", I think this only exacerbates its likely success, moreso because its simplistic nature lends it to be driven by broad community needs and not the goals or needs of a few influential parties with limited use scenarios. I also wouldn't relate it to RETS, even if it becomes a RESO standard. :) RETS is a mosquito cannon is most cases.

I'd be happy to attend the Board meeting; I'll be in on Tuesday night (with Tony, no less). We should make plans.

-Matt

Leadership is there to take responsibility, so if things are taking too long, that's the Board's fault. I know I won't shrink away from that responsibility as long as I'm a Board member and I don't think any of the other Board members would either.

Regarding the NAR MLS policy, there are as many questions as answers raised by the policy and I suspect you'll see an evolution of the policy to be "more organic -- driven by consumer demand and cost of implementation." Mandates don't work unless they are substantially driven by demand.

The main point I guess I'm making in all of the comments is that giving the Board a little more time to get a decent road map in place is reasonable. If the road map remains ill-defined and non-progressive by this fall, I'll be posting my discontent right along with you.

I get in on Tuesday as well, and would love to get together for a beer.

P.S. Is there a way to subscribe to comments or get e-mail updates on comments for your blog?