Ok, assuming that the OSGi Alliance is not changing its model of working, what do you propose to do?
Carsten Guillaume Nodet wrote > It seems either I have a hard time explaining myself, or you're all blind. > I'll suppose the first one, so I'll try again. > > Let's say someone comes to aries or felix saying: "i'd like to work on a RI > for the xxx rfc". At this point, that's fine if the RFC is kinda frozen. > Let's imagine it's not, and the api package is changed to play a bit with > latest EEG phone calls. Only OSGi Alliance members can freely modify the > API packages to reflect those changes. Worse, someone can make a change in > the API to be latter approved by the OSGi Alliance. > > There's clearly a difference between apache committers who are OSGi members > and those that are not. Some of them can make changes, others don't. > It looks like a problem to me. > > Another concrete example is if someone comes to one ASF project saying: > "I'd like to contribute this implementation of the RFC. Btw, the RFC > document does not yet reflect the changes in the RI, but it will soon". > > Guillaume > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
