Guillaume, you seem to be working from out of date information. All RFPs and RFCs are publicly available, including those that are still being developed. They are here: https://github.com/osgi/design/. This has been the case for at least four years now.
Given this, I don’t see any impediment to the Apache community, or any other person, in implementing any OSGi specification or specification-in-progress. Design of the specifications is properly reserved to OSGi members, i.e. organisations that have signed the membership agreement, because this gives confidence in the IP contained in those specifications. However it is not necessary to be involved in that design process in order to write an implementation. Occasionally an implementer will find a flaw such that an RFC cannot be implemented, but that information can be fed back to the OSGi members, and this is why OSGi specifications *must* have a functioning RI before they can be considered complete. On the other hand, if you merely have better ideas about the way the specification should be designed, then join the Alliance and get involved. Regards, Neil > On 18 Jan 2017, at 11:21, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > 2017-01-18 11:46 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com > <mailto:njbartl...@gmail.com>>: > >> Guillaume, >> >> All OSGi specifications in progress are publicly visible, so in what sense >> are Apache community members unable to be involved in the development of >> the RIs? >> > > I'm not talking about developing an implementation of a publicly released > specification. I have absolutely no problem with that of course. In such > a case, everyone is on the same ground and can go read the spec, afaik, the > OSGi Alliance also gives access to the TCK. > > I'm talking about developing an implementation of an RFC which is still > being developed. The RFC is developed by OSGi Alliance members during > phone calls or face to face meetings. Someone not a member of the OSGi > Alliance can't participate in the design process and can't even have access > to those documents. I don't see how all community members can be treated > equally in such a situation. A back channel where people can submit > feedback is definitely not the same as being part of the design process. > I'm not advocating that the ASF has to be part of the process, that's > something for the OSGi Alliance to decide. However, if the ASF committers > can't be part of it, I don't how an implementation of a design in progress > can be done correctly inside an ASF project. > > > >> >> Regards, >> Neil >> >>> On 18 Jan 2017, at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities. >>> >>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic thing >>> for a project is that people can get involved. >>> >>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference >> implementation >>> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being >>> developed at the OSGi Alliance. I find that very disturbing because >>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi >> Alliance >>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> Guillaume Nodet >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Red Hat, Open Source Integration > > Email: gno...@redhat.com <mailto:gno...@redhat.com> > Web: http://fusesource.com <http://fusesource.com/> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ <http://gnodet.blogspot.com/>
