When Twitter got going, RSS was marred by political infighting:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smashcompany.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;rss-has-been-damaged-by-in-fighting-among-those-who-advocate-for-it" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smashcompany.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;rss-has-been-damaged-...</a><p>And that is part of the reason why walled-gardens like Twitter sometimes do well. Sometimes open technologies are crippled by politics. Sometimes centralized decision making is faster, and can get more innovative stuff out the door. It took many years for specifications like Atom to mature. Meanwhile Twitter developed a huge eco-system of 3rd party apps.<p>But there is a counter-argument. Twitter later killed off much of the eco-system of 3rd party apps. And that suggests the weakness of central decision making. No one has the authority to kill RSS. And that suggests the strength of decentralized decision making.<p>But it seems clear, when an idea is young and immature, centralized decision making often has a speed advantage over what committees the industry sets up to try to work out a specification.