Thank you. While nORMa is good, I wouldn't go as far as to say I'd support that proposal. What has impressed me so far about ORMFoundation.org is that it is (on the whole)...'all about ORM', rather than 'all about nORMa'.
For example, how can we have serious discussion on a common meta-model if there is (hypothetically) more than obvious bias towards nORMa on the site in general?
To me, it comes down to 'relevance'. In as much as ORMFoundation.org is impartial (on the whole) today, it is extremely relevant. The moment a forum loses impartiality, I feel a site loses relevance all together, and becomes a 'marketing conduit'...analogous to a tabloid with page 3 photos, than a serious journal/amalgam of good science.
I feel the true strength of ORM is 'standardisation', and that has been quite democratically alloyed (albeit with limited voting points to select members of an unknown club...readers my take of that what they will, but I for one accept this principal, 'in principal').
Sure, we compete with nORMa, but that's got to be good. I hope Mat looks at my videos and says 'I better look at that', and visa versa. On the other hand, we have a vision very different from nORMa, and so while the tools will have features in common, they diverge quite significantly and quickly.
Our vision is long term. When the ORM community heads towards standardisation with a body like ISO, OMG or wherever, there will have to be parties at the table. e.g. if those parties all represent nORMa, then the 'standard' (in my opinion) is tainted.
In our opinion, there needs to be commercial interests involved in the activity of competition, and if we extrapolate nORMa from academia to the commercial interests behind academia, (e.g. books, course fees, appearance fees, salaries etc), and to countenance that we enter an area for which speaking is futile and which is something akin to a petty squabble, and I don't want to talk about it.
I say, "I like the way it is...with nORMa at the top of the list (showing an obvious, and understandable, bias) and with the challengers underneath. Let the customers/market decide". And you'd have to say, readers here are quite bright and well informed.
(No offence to CogNIAM or others who would, of course, 'not' see themselves as challengers, but ‘standard setters'...and therein lies my point/request to reason).