<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Open Source, End Users, and Product Management</title>
	<atom:link href="http://changingway.org/2008/05/05/open-source-end-users-and-product-management/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://changingway.org/2008/05/05/open-source-end-users-and-product-management/</link>
	<description>Andrew weighs in on the ways in which the web and the world are changing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:44:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Asay</title>
		<link>http://changingway.org/2008/05/05/open-source-end-users-and-product-management/#comment-5228</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Asay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 16:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://changingway.wordpress.com/?p=941#comment-5228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Could it be that the &quot;partial feed&quot; is not inimical to open source and openness, but rather helps to feed those who contribute the content?  It&#039;s CNET&#039;s decision how it displays my content, but I can&#039;t really fault it for this policy.  CNET gets paid on page views.  No one is going to click through if the feed doesn&#039;t require it.  Why would you?  

Sometimes we don&#039;t really want the consequences of what we want.  In this case, you might find that many of your favorite blogs would go away if they weren&#039;t funded by ads, ads which require a partial feed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could it be that the &#8220;partial feed&#8221; is not inimical to open source and openness, but rather helps to feed those who contribute the content?  It&#8217;s CNET&#8217;s decision how it displays my content, but I can&#8217;t really fault it for this policy.  CNET gets paid on page views.  No one is going to click through if the feed doesn&#8217;t require it.  Why would you?  </p>
<p>Sometimes we don&#8217;t really want the consequences of what we want.  In this case, you might find that many of your favorite blogs would go away if they weren&#8217;t funded by ads, ads which require a partial feed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

