2017-01-20 10:58 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: > > > 2017-01-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org>: > >> At this point I’d also like to re-affirm that the OSGi RFC documents are >> public, and that there is a public feedback mechanism for RFC bugs. As the >> holder of the pen for Transaction Control, the JAX-RS whiteboard, and the >> JPA service updates I can truthfully say that community discussion and >> feedback has influenced the direction of those RFCs/specifications, not >> just the converter. >> >> As David says below, you can gain increased control over the direction of >> things anywhere by becoming a member/committer/employee. Committers in >> Apache Aries have ample opportunity to review and discuss the many >> implementations built there, just as they do in Felix. This right applies >> both before and after the release of the specification. What Apache >> Committers can’t do is make changes to an OSGi RFC/spec, for that they need >> to lobby an OSGi member. > > > I have no problems with the above. > > >> This is exactly the same for a committer in Eclipse, on Github, or in a >> private company, so it leaves Apache committers just as equal as everyone >> else. > > > I don't care about how Eclipse or Github project are operated. We're > talking about Apache projects and there are rules. One of them is that > committers are considered equal. > > >> The main difference here is that there are a lot of OSGi members who >> believe in Apache, and therefore contribute as committers. Are we really >> saying that those committers should be disallowed because they are OSGi >> members and therefore have “more power”? >> > > Not disallowed, but yes, they should not do something within the ASF that > other committers who are not OSGi members can't do. > So to be clear: if any committer want to work on an implementation of an > RFC or spec from the OSGi Alliance, that's fine, whether they are OSGi > members or not. > If an OSGi member want to work on spec design within the ASF bounds, I > think that's not fine. In particular, if someone propose to develop some > code to implement an RFC when the API from the developped and later > introduced back into the RFC document, I think that's definitely spec work, > and should not be done within the RFC. > > To be crystal clear, I have a problem with Ray willing to bring code for > implementing rfc-193 in Aries, when the code that he wants to bring > contains lots of things that are not reflected in the RFC document and the > opposite. Ray and David explained that the RFC document will be updated in > the coming weeks to reflect those changes. This is definitely spec work, > and that's fine, but I don't think it should happen at Apache. Again, it's > a timing problem wrt to changes in the document and changes in the code : > if the code is changes first by the spec lead, and later validated on > during OSGi meetings and later integrated into the spec document and made > public, I definitely see that as spec work, not as building an > implementation, and imho this is unfair to other committers because it does > not follow the ASF rules. It's certainly open source, but not the Apache > way. >
And btw, even from a legal ASF pov, I'm not sure how things hold. People are writing code copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance directly in the ASF... > > >> >> Finally, there are a lot of projects and/or components in Open Source >> (including Apache) that are written by a single committer, typically the >> person with the itch to scratch. Only If that committer tries to prevent >> discussion about, or changes to, that code is there a problem for the >> community. To my knowledge this does not apply to any of the components in >> Apache Aries or Apache Felix. >> > > A piece of code being developed by a single person is definitely not a > good thing within the ASF. Again, the ASF operates with community over > code mantra and requires diversity within a project to avoid dictatorship > and to ensure that the code development is overseen and can be maintained > if one people is going away. Having some code being developed by a single > person certainly does not help. The fact that it has almost always been the > case for a bunch of subprojects in Felix or Aries does not mean it's > healthy nor good. But this is slightly mitigated by the fact that over > time, people tend to jump and fix things when they need. > > Obviously, if that person would try to prevent discussion or code changes, > that would be definitely a critical problem, but I haven't seen such a > behavior. > > >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Tim Ward >> >> > On 19 Jan 2017, at 17:32, David Leangen <o...@leangen.net> wrote: >> > >> >>> Ray has listed a number of things that have been implemented during >> the >> >>> past few months. All of them have been written by a single committer >> who >> >>> also happen to be the one modifying the spec document. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> This is factually incorrect at least for the Converter implementation >> at >> >> Felix. Just look at the commit history for commits done on behalf of >> >> community members and also check the mailing list for discussions that >> >> definitely provided great feedback on the work done. >> > >> > I have been doing a very tiny bit of work on the Converter as a double >> outsider (non committer in Felix, and non OSGi member). >> > >> > I completely rely on others to accept my contributions and suggestions, >> making me a kind of second class citizen. It does work, but I need to >> either (i) become a first class citizen either by merit or paying fees, >> depending on the organisation, or (ii) accept my dependence on the goodwill >> of others. Currently I have a de facto sponsor who has been very attentive >> to my questions and contributions, so (ii) is working out well enough. If >> it didn’t work out, could always fall back on option (i). >> > >> > So I can understand the frustrations and agree that there is a bit of a >> grey area, but at the same time I understand that in the end I have the >> same opportunities as everybody else. In this case, I am not willing/able >> to “pay the price” for full citizenship, so I don’t feel I have the right >> to complain. >> > >> > >> > Just my 2¥. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > =David >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
