The ASF has experience with this - and an existing US based model, that does not require physical meetings. Sure, setting up such a body is not something to do in an evening.
I guess what I'm saying is that sure, let the protocol spec go with the WIAB RI into the incubator, but if others are implementing the spec too, at some point it will need to be somewhere more independent. Just musing about the possibility of an Apache style body, and hoping that someone will pick up the idea and run with it :-) Upayavira On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:21 +0100, "Torben Weis" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, as one of the initial KDE members, I know about the difficulties of setting up KDE e.V. (the legal organization behind KDE). The real problem was the (german) tax office. Building a non-profit organization and getting tax exemption is difficult. Furthermore, by law this legal body has to conduct physical meetings regularily, it has to elect a president and treasurer etc. pp.. It might be slightly better in the US, but whenever one does intend to not pay taxes, it will become difficult - everywhere. Do we need to emphasize that we intend to develop "standards"? Currently these are just "specification" documents and I believe that every self respecting software product sports some specs. In the very moment when we upgrade the specs to standards, we have to move out of the Apache incubator project of course. I just fear that we cannot setup some standards body quickly enough. This takes time and needs care. Let's call it specs instead of standards and spin it off later (unless somebody volunteers to tackle all the legal tax effort quickly). Torben 2010/11/23 Upayavira <[[email protected]> By moving WIAB to Apache, you are solving the governance issue with regard to the RI, but not those of the protocol itself. I am personally open to the possibility of the protocol joining the incubator as a temporary measure, but I do think it would be a harder proposal to get through, as Apache is coscious that it is not a standards body. One thing I would certainly like to see explored, is what would it me like to establish a new Foundation, established along lines similar to Apache (consensus based and meritocratic), who's aims are to support the creation of open specifications. Could this be something folks here could (eventually) participate in? Upayavira On Nov 20, 3:21 pm, Torben Weis <[2][email protected]> wrote: > I agree that spec and implementation should be "independent" eventually. > > There are two more practical things worth considering IMHO: > a) If specs are not part of the Apache project, we need to define our own > governance rules or copy them which will cost time and effort > b) There is a risk that specs and implementation differ too much because the > communities are too disjoint. > > From a practical perspective I would like to keep the specs together with > WiaB for some time. Right now this will save us some additional overhead and > it keeps the community together. WiaB could decide to check every 6 months > whether time has come to spin off the specs in their own project. > > Finally, editing a spec in a Wiki is a no go. I would like to see a changes > list to understand what happens to the protocol specs. > > Greetings > Torben > > 2010/11/20 Chris Harvey <[3][email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Keeping two sites: Wave Protocol and RI development makes sense to me. > > > Count me in to the protocol working group > > > -- > > Chris > > [4]iotawave.org > > Singapore > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Wave Protocol" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [5][email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [6][email protected]<wave-protocol%2B unsubscr...@goog [7]legroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >[8]http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > [9][email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [10][email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [11][email protected]. For more options, visit this group at [12]http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. -- --------------------------- Prof. Torben Weis Universitaet Duisburg-Essen [13][email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. mailto:[email protected] 4. http://iotawave.org/ 5. mailto:[email protected] 6. mailto:wave-protocol%[email protected] 7. http://legroups.com/ 8. http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en 9. mailto:[email protected] 10. mailto:[email protected] 11. mailto:wave-protocol%[email protected] 12. http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en 13. mailto:[email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
