2017-01-18 13:22 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com>: > Guillaume, you seem to be working from out of date information. All RFPs > and RFCs are publicly available, including those that are still being > developed. They are here: https://github.com/osgi/design/. This has been > the case for at least four years now. > > Given this, I don’t see any impediment to the Apache community, or any > other person, in implementing any OSGi specification or > specification-in-progress. >
I am very well aware of that fact, thx. > > Design of the specifications is properly reserved to OSGi members, i.e. > organisations that have signed the membership agreement, because this gives > confidence in the IP contained in those specifications. However it is not > necessary to be involved in that design process in order to write an > implementation. Occasionally an implementer will find a flaw such that an > RFC cannot be implemented, but that information can be fed back to the OSGi > members, and this is why OSGi specifications *must* have a functioning RI > before they can be considered complete. On the other hand, if you merely > have better ideas about the way the specification should be designed, then > join the Alliance and get involved. > Again, I'm talking about using Apache to develop the will-be reference implementation of the being-designed spec. When the rfc is undergoing changes, the RI, as you say, is an experimental project to make sure the RFC properly address all problems and can be turned into a spec. The information needed to get involved in such a moving target is not available to the Apache community. Again, I've no problem if someone wants to develop an implementation of a publicly available spec, but that's not what I'm discussing here. And I don't think the OSGi Alliance want to have an open participation into the spec design process, and that's perfectly fine with me. If I'm wrong, then using public mailing lists and avoiding phone calls and f2f meetings is the way to go, such as we do at the ASF. > > Regards, > Neil > > > On 18 Jan 2017, at 11:21, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 2017-01-18 11:46 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com <mailto: > njbartl...@gmail.com>>: > > > >> Guillaume, > >> > >> All OSGi specifications in progress are publicly visible, so in what > sense > >> are Apache community members unable to be involved in the development of > >> the RIs? > >> > > > > I'm not talking about developing an implementation of a publicly released > > specification. I have absolutely no problem with that of course. In > such > > a case, everyone is on the same ground and can go read the spec, afaik, > the > > OSGi Alliance also gives access to the TCK. > > > > I'm talking about developing an implementation of an RFC which is still > > being developed. The RFC is developed by OSGi Alliance members during > > phone calls or face to face meetings. Someone not a member of the OSGi > > Alliance can't participate in the design process and can't even have > access > > to those documents. I don't see how all community members can be treated > > equally in such a situation. A back channel where people can submit > > feedback is definitely not the same as being part of the design process. > > I'm not advocating that the ASF has to be part of the process, that's > > something for the OSGi Alliance to decide. However, if the ASF > committers > > can't be part of it, I don't how an implementation of a design in > progress > > can be done correctly inside an ASF project. > > > > > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Neil > >> > >>> On 18 Jan 2017, at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities. > >>> > >>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic > thing > >>> for a project is that people can get involved. > >>> > >>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference > >> implementation > >>> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being > >>> developed at the OSGi Alliance. I find that very disturbing because > >>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi > >> Alliance > >>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho. > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> Guillaume Nodet > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------ > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Red Hat, Open Source Integration > > > > Email: gno...@redhat.com <mailto:gno...@redhat.com> > > Web: http://fusesource.com <http://fusesource.com/> > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ <http://gnodet.blogspot.com/> > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: gno...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
