Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44CF1509.6020106@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:47:05 +0100
From: Gordon Sim <gordon.sim@virgin.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
References: <c5e632550607200133u7db769e9h241c6b2a381b5242@mail.gmail.com>
 <44C68C4D.9070008@redhat.com> <44C91BAF.1060006@redhat.com>
 <7edfeeef0607271632s1e133e5fs163f9aa41423585b@mail.gmail.com>
 <44C95DAF.8030001@redhat.com>
 <7edfeeef0607271840r48f72424qadc53b8dff511b92@mail.gmail.com>
 <16d6c6200607271848i1713a368x4f2ae83138a98be@mail.gmail.com>
 <0EA9B294-505A-4E57-B812-69808D3D8425@SUN.com>
 <16d6c6200607272048w6edeae46peed38ba00e953877@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f985b960607281420of33fcebhebe82186c52e3f@mail.gmail.com>
 <c5e632550607291645qb848eads92590ae23933cf47@mail.gmail.com>
 <BDAE04C0-1537-44A6-9949-EA3F611BAEE5@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <BDAE04C0-1537-44A6-9949-EA3F611BAEE5@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Brian McCallister wrote:
> If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this 
> requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the 
> protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages 
> this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for 
> accomplishing this goal, and the process is anything but transparent 
> at the moment.
>

I agree with you; a transparent, inclusive process is essential to 
building support for the protocol. I think all the members of the 
protocol working group would agree also.

I would describe the future as vague in some of the details rather than 
mysterious. The intent has been made clear, namely that the protocol 
should be open and free for anyone to implement and should ultimately by 
controlled through an appropriate standards body. Before that happens, 
the current working group intends to work with a community of interested 
parties to ensure that the '1.0' release is fit for purpose. The current 
working group is open to new members and is eager for feedback from anyone.

> Both of these points would be lightened if the folks presently 
> involved with the specification process seemed to recognize them as 
> issues.

Your first point, if I understood it correctly, seems to be a question 
for the ASF, rather than the AMQP protocol specification group. With 
respect to the second point, as I state above, I think the need for an 
open, transparent and inclusive dialogue with all interested parties 
*is* recognised as essential for the protocol to fulfill its objectives.

> To my reading, they are not recognized as issues, and there has been 
> no public discussion by the folks actually involved with the protocol 
> spec about this. The extent of it has been to say, more or less, that 
> they doesn't think there is a problem.

I'm not sure whether you are referring here to a specific post(s) on 
this list or some other forum. In general though, there seems to be two 
questions: (i) is openness important and (ii) is openness currently 
achieved. Am I correct in assuming your concerns are related to the 
second of these? Can you give more detail on what you feel the problems are?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org