Mailing-List: contact dev-help@aries.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@aries.apache.org
From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
To: Apache Felix Dev List <dev@felix.apache.org>
CC: "dev@aries.apache.org" <dev@aries.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Thread-Topic: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Thread-Index: AQHScXd/uYT44HMJp0izTBeZtEYCIqE+EPSAgAAE04A=
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:16:49 +0000
Message-ID: <2C74542A-39DA-4C4D-94D9-55A1CB29A99B@adobe.com>
References: <CAA66Tpqt9wU_5s80SsbZ0zmTKQyu0zCuhBqc+vFwRLJfNr9yAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMit8Sp4cza3Qrj865i-bmS+enars9jhj6P+_-o0ioYemp-F_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMit8Sp4cza3Qrj865i-bmS+enars9jhj6P+_-o0ioYemp-F_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-CH, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [192.147.117.11]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d88577c9-3cf4-4996-ae05-08d43f937f8a
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:CY4PR02MB2567;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;CY4PR02MB2567;7:jjxu2gamKYv6dnVA4KYNBvFIc8As3BykYoD1HwKuLwNCiNf21UgxAPM4Hd2Bbex5u92LmW9dAnZFUGcMDjTh3R9j9efdNB43tQCQ3q2wpdmuyO8HQZFrmlWqQhkPkw9O5Yum4XsDiBV7Sb7BBHwqf1RU3vsravGtMenPZikVrpalUtQjTsLqRJBpNd27Y34Ge/b3N6t2sNl6UogoAnsAyu8Ieb7H0ir3F8mUglErLpngSLhRkgTI8OXsITz/qcsC6wygWN7aeWY9IyEiAo/NvxaEJhu66khglh/YUXdVENLaeHaW2F3k+v54ddeNq4wys/ghKCwn/wKjkxysupsW9Xmu91oI5p+oKQdK0VqYRc77iJu52wu0LQUgkhiUctDzmCZSV00tRV15iMO39zWw3LN44Hr8dpcXqorV1qe6mjiZJfgKb2DNmE6ADDA43nAToEKOO3UN7m1dWglFOGrcmQ==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR02MB2567AC480837E50140479990C97F0@CY4PR02MB2567.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820)(5213294742642);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(61425038)(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(6072148);SRVR:CY4PR02MB2567;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY4PR02MB2567;
x-forefront-prvs: 01917B1794
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39410400002)(39860400002)(39450400003)(24454002)(53754006)(189002)(199003)(76176999)(122556002)(6116002)(4326007)(50986999)(8676002)(6916009)(2950100002)(102836003)(81166006)(8936002)(6512007)(68736007)(38730400001)(6436002)(6486002)(81156014)(33656002)(3846002)(6306002)(5660300001)(6506006)(99286003)(97736004)(229853002)(77096006)(36756003)(25786008)(101416001)(106116001)(3280700002)(305945005)(10090500001)(189998001)(83716003)(66066001)(2900100001)(50226002)(57306001)(106356001)(7736002)(110136003)(2906002)(92566002)(105586002)(53936002)(82746002)(86362001)(3660700001)(104396002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:CY4PR02MB2567;H:CY4PR02MB2566.namprd02.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: adobe.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F8E7E5DCFB2897498B283AAF73C55424@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jan 2017 11:16:49.6848
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR02MB2567
archived-at: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:17:39 -0000

Hi all

And we should also mention that quite a number of active community members =
actually working on those things are members (or employees of members) of t=
he OSGi alliance and as such open to feedback received from the communities=
 on the evolution of the specifications.

As such, I think it is even positive for both the communities and the OSGi =
alliance to have Apache projects implement reference implementations.

Maybe we could do a better job in communicating that fact ?

Regards
Felix

> Am 18.01.2017 um 11:59 schrieb David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.c=
om>:
>=20
> Hi Guillaume,
>=20
> First of all, the OSGi Alliance is a very open standards development
> organization. Any organisation can join. RFPs and RFCs are developed in t=
he
> open, specs are available for free and are free to be implemented by anyo=
ne.
>=20
> There is also an open feedback channel available where everyone can post
> feedback, described at https://github.com/osgi/design
>=20
> OSGi works very hard in defining specs that are portable and can be
> implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything of that
> sort.
>=20
> History has shown that spec implementations are really quite portable.
> Implementation bundles can be mixed from different sources and everything
> just works as long as you use the specced APIs.
>=20
> Every new spec that is being worked on in OSGi needs, besides the RFP/RFC
> and spec chapter, a Reference Implementation and a Conformance Testsuite.
> Over the past 10 years or so, Reference Implementations have primarily be=
en
> implemented in open source. This has the benefit that everyone can see wh=
at
> the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to provide
> feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers have fr=
ee
> access to the relevant CTs as well.
>=20
> I think this is all goodness. Or would you rather see that Reference
> Implementations are implemented in private?
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> David
>=20
>=20
> On 18 January 2017 at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities.
>>=20
>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic thing
>> for a project is that people can get involved.
>>=20
>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference implementati=
on
>> 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 Allia=
nce
>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho.
>>=20
>> Thoughts ?
>> Guillaume Nodet
>>=20