Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44FFA8B1.6000203@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:05:53 -0700
From: Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: DRDA Spec, update
References: <44FEE5BE.5030100@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <44FEE5BE.5030100@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I don't get the impression that standards bodies have good models for 
> how to deal with open source efforts. If anyone can recommend a good 
> resource on this topic, please let us all know.
>
Thanks Rick for your continued effort in this.

To me the interesting thing from a practical perspective is that if  the 
Derby community were to provide useful extensions  even without a 
corporate connection and make them publicly available and free of all 
strings, wouldn't those standard bodies be foolish not to pick them up 
and take advantage of them?  It seems to me that your current opengroup 
setup sounds like a good start to open up receptivity and communication. 
Hopefully at some point it won't be necessary to have a corporate 
connection, while that is still required, your  multi company setup 
sounds healthier than having just a single corporate entry point.

I am sorry I don't know of any good resource on this and a Google search 
did not glean much for me.  I seem to recall Dan mentioning an article 
in passing one day but may have imagined it. 

Kathey