As far as I can tell, this is Avidan's first involvement in syndication. He's passing over three groups -- the developers of RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0, and Atom -- without making an attempt to work with any of us.
RSS 3.0 is pitched as a better-specified version of RSS 2.0, but it drops a bunch of elements and makes changes to several others, so it's more than a spec rewrite.
Avidan also claims it will make Atom better, which would be a neat trick, since that format just became a proposed Internet standard after an arduous, two-year development process. I'm guessing that its creators would burst into tears at the slightest mention of a second version.
I don't know why RSS offers more forks than a picnic, but I wish I could use the RSS Advisory Board to simplify the situation. A new person trying to figure out syndication shouldn't have to learn three formats just to make an educated decision about which one to support. Correction: Four formats.
Slashdot founder Rob Malda thought RSS 3.0 was front-page news yesterday, which gives me hope. I've been working on an incredible new format I call HTML 5.0.
Not to mention the fact that there is prior RSS 3.0 art.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Slashdot posting. Doesn't basically everyone write off everything posted on Slashdot these days, while still loading the main page 5x or more per day? It's almost like being Slashdotted is one of the key ingredients for getting totally ignored thereafter now.
I'm guessing that its creators would burst into tears at the slightest mention of a second version.
Atom 1.0 specifies a core for the format. If someone can show items that absolutely need to be in the core of the format, as compared to being useful extensions, they are welcome to bring them to the WG. Non-core extensions are already being actively discussed, and some might become standards themselves.