This is a good thing for us (the ASF), and has no downside that I can see. I agree that the collaborative working model for ASF projects is significantly different from OASIS projects, but that speaks to the nature of the problem. Standards development is tough work and it requires a lot of direct collaboration (i.e. face-to-face or telecon) time to get issues worked out. TCs are a lot of work, but it's important work.
If an individual ASF committer is interested enough in the topic of an OASIS technical committee, presumbably with the intention of working on an implementation, then the individual committer will have to participate in telecons appropriately. Attendance at face-to-face meetings is not required and a dial in number is normally provided.
The WSRP4J and WSS4J are 2 projects off the top of my head that overlap with OASIS TCs. I am an ASF committer on WSRP4J and a member of the WSRP OASIS Technical Committee as an observer. I am sure there are quite of few ASF folk are also OASIS folk, but currently these can only be folk whose employer is an OASIS member.
We should make it as easy as possible to collaborate and participate with OASIS TCs so that we can use our extensive knowledge and experience to guide and influence standards that we plan to implement.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: OASIS] Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:23:22 +0200 From: Santiago Gala P�rez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Portals PMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The whole thread is about Apache joining Oasis, which could be relevant for wsrp4j and potentially other projects.
Regards Santiago
Subject: OASIS From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:09:42 +0200 (CEST)
To: [email protected]
Within the ASF we have a number of projects which deal with formats and standards close to OASIS.
We've been approached by OASIS to see if it makes sense to join them. This is a call out to Community to see if that makes sense.
There are a number of obstacles when working with OASIS (or the w3c for that matter) compared to working with some of the other/normal standards bodies such as the IETF.
Below are the obstacles to overcome/consider:
-> Face 2 Face meetings and Telecons are important to them;
as are forms of organisation bound voting alien to us. The ASF developers come from all walks of life; and while
for some their ASF work is directly aligned with their normal
jobs - for others it is not. Asynchronous email is crucial in
allowing all to participate at times fitting; regardless of
their
timezone or other commitment. Hence any face to face travel,
or significant teleconferencing requirements generally
lower the quality of the ASF its participation. -> They have things like NDA and other agreements for
their members, i.e. the ASF, which do not map onto
the agreements the ASF has with its developers. We are a relatively open organisation; which makes
it hard to adhere to NDA's or other embargo's as under
normal operating procedures anyone can join any (mailing)
list at any time; and their contributions are simply based
on merit rather than as to wether they are a paying
member. -> Any 'pay to play' is generally an issue for us on fundamental
grounds. Even if a fee is waived - we generally insist that
this is done not just for us - but for the entire open source,
open standards and/or academic community at large.But having said that - we've been able to resolve these issues in the past with some other similar organisations.
So - community - do we see enough benefit to start this conversation with Oasis ? Do we want to be close to some of their standards ?
I'll give this conversation a week or so to build up; and if not - will send a polite msg to Oasis saying; thanks for the offer but not at this time.
Thanks,
Dw
-- Julie MacNaught IBM Research [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
