On 9/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > Simon Laws wrote: > > > On 9/27/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 9/27/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> <snip> > > >> > > >> So you have 4 more days after Sunday :) But there's no reason to rush > > out, > > >>> I'm just clarifying the timeline, you'll be ready when you'll be > ready > > >> and > > >>> you can also target Nov. 21st. > > >> > > >> The November time frame sounds good to me and gives plenty of time to > > sort > > >> out things and bring it up with the IPMC so we know if they've any > > issues > > >> we > > >> need to address before calling a vote. > > > > I think that November is allowing things to slide too much. Are there > > any reasons that will DEFINITELY prevent achieving October? Otherwise > > October is my vote. > > > > >> > > >> ...ant > > >> > > > But there is nothing stopping us pushing ahead now. If we happened to > be > > > ready for October we should try for October. > > > > +1 from me. Leaving a slacker schedule typically does not help. Set > > the challenging schedule and focus on the big items to get us there. > > Go for October. > > > Two of things i think we should do are: > > - the PPMC doesn't yet reflect the diversity of the committers. We've all > been a bit busy with 1.0 etc and there's a few people now who we could > look > at as PPMC members, Matthieu brought this up earlier on the thread. Doing > this now may help prevent any questions about diversity.
+1 - the openness of the specs and our interaction with OSOA has been brought > up before by the Incubator. Most things have now moved to OASIS and that > should resolve those issues but stuff still happens at OSOA. We need to > come > up with an approach to dealing with that, and i think it would be good to > do > this now before trying to graduate. You refer to at least [1]. Separating some of the issues I think are involved. 1 - OASIS doesn't meet the "openness of participation" required set out in mail [1]. I believe the issue is that while all stages of spec development are open to anyone to see you have to pay to contribute. This is not a Tuscany specific issue. 2 - Do the IPR terms chosen by the SCA TCs in OASIS make upcoming OSASIS specifications suitable for implementation by Tuscany when they appear? I guess we need to get the view from legal@ on this. 3 - Do the license associated with the OSOA v1.0 specs, that we currently implement, cause concern? legal@ again. 4 - Some V1.0 specs haven't moved to OASIS, e.g. EJB binding, so we either stick with OSOA V1.0, assuming that the licenses are acceptable, or remove the binding (I'm assuming here that this is what binding-ejb is) 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that the mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS. ...ant > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
