I was just reminded why I went with Harvard as the place where the RSS 2.0 spec resides permanently. And why the further work on podcasting, resulting a great new medium in the last few years, happened there as well. Harvard deserves a lot of credit for enabling that.

So why did I push so hard to do the work at Harvard, instead of MIT which would seem a more straightforward choice? The two universities, at opposite ends of Mass Ave in Cambridge have great reps, but at opposite ends of the spectrum between engineering and the humanities.

I've always believed that it was the human side of technology that had the greatest potential. When I was coming up in the 70s and 80s this was a contrarian view. So in 2003 when RSS needed a home to cement it as a standard, I chose the Cambridge university with the stronger rep as a place to be human as opposed to being a nerd. Not that the two are in any way exclusive. My point was, that through the technology we were working on, they would become the same thing.

I guess the disadvantage of going the contrarian route is that it isn't so intuitive to the people at Harvard today that the university should have played such a great role at the leading edge of technology thirteen years ago. 

No small thanks to the people at Berkman Center for their love and support at the time. ;-)

And in retrospect -- it worked. Took a long time to shake out. But all is quiet in RSS-land and it still rages as a standard for interop that continues to bear fruit.