www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:15:04 GMT
Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> I am not sure if you are labeling me as the OSGi Alliance or you  
>> meant "you and the OSGi Alliance"...I definitely don't consider  
>> myself to speak for the OSGi Alliance.
> Should have proof read the email before sending... meant to write  
> just "I understand why he OSGi Alliance would want this"... I was  
> going to put "you" in there but didn't want to singly you out...  
> guess I did that anyway, sorry.

No problem, I always have tons of typos in my messages...in too much of 
a hurry, I guess. :-)

>> Contrary to what you might think, my involvement in the OSGi  
>> Alliance was fostered purely through open community activity.
>> And if this could open the OSGi specification process more, then it  
>> would be good...
> Do you think it actually will?  My opinion is that having the JCP  
> accept externally developed specs and approving them without a full  
> community process, will remove the motivation to be open.

I can only speak from my experience, but the OSGi Alliance appears to be 
moving in a more open direction, trying to find ways for the community 
to participate and provide feedback. The fact that I am a member of the 
OSGi Alliance is purely based on meritocracy...they invited me to be a 
member and created a special membership category for me based on the 
merit of my contributions over the years.

> On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Is the JCP really as open as you imply? In reality, if you are not  a 
>> member of the JSR EG (and/or an employee of member company/ 
>> organization) then you are basically out of luck when it comes to  
>> being able to take part in the "open community process". As far as  
>> spec implementability, that is a non-issue for OSGi since I have  
>> been doing it for five years.
> I agree that is a problem, and something I would like see changed  
> over time.  Basically, I think we should only support changes that  
> bring us closer to a truly open meritocratic process, and not support  
> steps that move us away.  I think this is a step away from openness.

Depends on the perspective. Looking at it from the OSGi Alliance 
perspective, maybe it is a step toward openness, whereas from the JCP 
perspective it is not. From my limited experience with the JCP, it 
doesn't seem much, if any, more closed.

I agree with you, however, that things could be better. We just have to 
prod them how we can.

-> richard

View raw message