On 9/27/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Are these public yet? > > 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] > > > Using the assembly spec group as an example I was looking here ( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/sca-assembly/ipr.php). I'm sure Mike can comment on the actual words that are going to appear on any specifications that are produced
Simon
