On 9/27/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > Starting another thread based on Ant's comment: > > - 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. > > > OK, I've added a checklist item for that here: > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+Graduation+Checklist > > > My first pennyworth: > > 1) Specs being handled at OASIS are as open as the OASIS IP rules will > allow. Everything is public, but you can only contribute stuff if you > agree to the IP rules (very similar to the rules Apache has for code > contributions) > > 2) Spec material being handled at OSOA - OSOA provides means for > providing feedback and means for joining as a supporter for access to > some non-public materials. As with OASIS, you have to sign up to some > IP rules. > > What aspect of the OSOA process needs fixing, in your opinion? > > > Yours, Mike. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Mike, I just posted to the original thread on this so am cross posting here.
======================= 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. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ======================
