aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:21:24 GMT
2017-01-18 11:46 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <>:

> 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 <> 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


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message