On 10/11/2013 12:27 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
The argument for evolving "de facto" standards is not really pertinent here (in the context of addressing and management). De facto standards emerge when some product/idea is developed and turned loose and people take off and run with it. In this case, work is ongoing at OASIS and other products are (I assume) implementing them.
One of the biggest lessons I've learned during the years of AMQP's painful evolution, is that with standards, the technical details are not the only important thing. Indeed often they aren't even the most important thing. For want of a better word, 'social' aspects are critical.
For me, this is the area where AMQP made the biggest mistakes. Now that 1.0 is here and is becoming a reality, I really hoped the same mistakes would not be perpetuated. AMQP has a history of mandating things that no-one implements or that are implemented grudgingly. It has a history of willing participants feeling excluded. (The dearth of practical choice for 1.0 clients is still a very real problem).
As I said before, my interest is not in reforming OASIS. My interest is in the Qpid project and in demonstrable interoperability and choice. I believe open source works best when software is produced by developers who want to do it, who feel personally engaged in and excited about what they are implementing, not when they feel coerced by outside forces.
The AMQP core specification is here and I fully accept its authority. The only 'authority' I recognise beyond that is the Qpid community and evidence of consensus with other products, particularly other open source projects.
A key principle at Apache is the 'faithful implementation of standards'. I firmly believe in that. The standards we do adopt we should implement faithfully. But simply because Qpid was founded to implement and promote AMQP does not mean that any additional 'emerging standard' being worked on under that name has special authority over the space it stakes out for itself.
That is not to say that I think they should be ignored. If there is no good reason not to adopt them, doing so makes sense. However I personally do not accept the notion that I have any obligation to engage with the OASIS process to address whatever issues I may have. My obligation is to discuss my views first and foremost with the Qpid community and the users of whatever software I am working on. If the view of the community is that only the 'emerging standard' can be implemented, so be it. It is the authority of the community I would respect there, not that of OASIS.
I stress again that I *want* genuine interoperability and real choice for users. I'm just not prepared to restrict myself to an approach and process I have lost faith in.
This is my own *personal* viewpoint and does not in anyway reflect the views of my employer or that of any colleague, friend or associate!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
