Tollfree in the US: 877-421-0030
Access code: 173098#
Full list of phone numbers
Call Time: 8:00 AM Pacific; 11:00 AM Eastern; 1500 UTC
Advised to leave Aries and Virgo out of the proposal completely. That avoids "no-spec" issue (at least for now). (There was even some questions asked if Virgo "violates" OSGi spec, if I heard that right?). It was mentioned that it is possible to develop some types of applications with OSGi bundles only (no "metadata" required). So might be some merit to no-app-model tools. But, otheres mentioned it's like having a webapp without an EAR ... not as much control/reuse? Also, there was some that questioned how much "end user" tools there could be with OSGi only apps. Might turn out to be mostly framework for adopters?
In this context, we discussed what we'd want to change about charter, especially the part that's so specific about "specs". While we agree its over limiting, should we remove it completely? Have some modified (looser) form? How else to state "widely used, industry accepted enterprise frameworks, that fit well with the rest of WTP." Does the charter obligate us to accept "anything that technically fits the wording", or is it always PMC's descretion? Fairly sure there's no "obligation", but we'd need to know what guidence and expectations to provide to others, and avoid apparences of some sort of arbitrary favoritism. Most important, it was discussed, it would be best to consider any charter changes independent of any particular project proposal, though some would be "in mind" perhaps as "hypothetical examples" to discuss.
Back to meeting list.
Please send any additions or corrections to David Williams.
Back to the top