[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
| [dataspace-protocol-base-dev] How about following the Eclipse Community Code of Conduct also in the Eclipse Dataspace Working Group? | 
  
  
    Good Morning Javier, 
    >Which mailing list are you referring to?
    
    
    Please refer to the list 1) through 7) mentioned below and
      kindly let me know, if I missed 
      some DCP-related mailing list.
    
    
    >The one indicated in my 2 first emails is open and anyone
      can subscribe. That is the one used for the spec ballots,
      precisely for them to be open.
    
    
    At which publicly available mailing list was there an
      announcement for 
      
    
    1) the existence of RC4 of DCP, 
    2) any request for comments and a related technical
      specification review, 
    3) any mentioning of a subsequently planned submission as PAS
      to ISO?
    4) any opening of a ballot to approve such a
      specification review?
    5) any transparent casting of votes related to a technical
      review and its approval?
    
    
    I walked through a large variety of mailing lists mentioned
      below, but I was 
      unfortunately not able to find anything related to the
      five points above.  :-(
    
    
    >The only private mailing list are the ones used to call for
      meetings or discuss internal committee issues for the Steering and
      Specification committees. 
      >They don’t hold discussions, those are reflected on the
      minutes. 
    
    
    Probably yes, but the minutes systematically refer to
      additional details and attachments, which 
      are unfortunately only accessible to members of the Steering and
      Specification committees. 
    
    
    Why?
    
    
    
    
    
    The pledge of the Eclipse Foundation contains very
      friendly words, like "open" and "inclusive", 
      but it seems the practice within EDWG does neither
        follow the spirit nor the letter of this code. 
    
    
    Why? 
    
    
    
    I am subscribed to the following four publicly
      accessible mailing lists, which somehow seem 
      to be related to the questionable DCP:
    
    
    
    Code of Conduct of the Eclipse Foundfollow also within the Eclipse
      Dataspace Working Group. 
    
    
    Best Regards,
        Detlef
    
    
    
    technical issues, which in my opinion need to be fixed urgently
      - before there can be
      submitted as PAS to ISO. Please stay tuned - and keep in mind that
      the Eclipse Foundation 
      still has a good repudiation and it is probably not worth to put
      this at risk for a single 
      highly disputable technical specification.
    
    
    -----
    
      1) dataspace-dcp-dev
        (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/dataspace-dcp-dev)
    The messages for the different release candidates BEFORE RC4
      marked yellow below were as follows:
      - RC3 (10.04.2025)
      - RC2 (27.02.2025)
      - RC1 (19.12.2024)
      
      The crucial RC4, which is intended to be shipped to ISO, has
          not even be announced yet on this mailing list. :-(
    
    
    2) dataspace-wg
        (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/dataspace-wg)
    There does not seem to be any mail related to the planned
        submission of DSP or DCP to ISO. :-(
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The message for DSP RC1 marked in
      yellow below was on 27.02.2025. 
    
    which is most likely intended to be
        shipped to ISO, has not even be announced yet on this
        mailing list. :-(
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I see in the archive of this mailing
      list, that there have been ballots for the initiation of
      specification projects including 
    
    - a couple of positive votes on the
      mailing list and
    
    
    
    Unfortunately, I can 
not see
      any similar ballot with respect to the start of any 
      voting on the approval of any DCP spec on this list, but only the
      miracuously appearing result
      of the ballot
      
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/dataspace-wg-spec/msg00050.html. 
      I am pretty sure, that a ballot for "Eclipse Dataspace
      Decentralized Claims Protocol Release Review", 
      which has not even be announced in some way can not formally be
      approved. Right? 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     
    The same problem exists with the
      dataspace-protocol-base-security mailing list. 
    
    
    Why?
    
    
    
    
      
    
    
    
    It is needless to say, that I would
      love to be subscribed to the mailing list 
      dataspace-wg-specification-committee, as there are serious topics
      to be discussed - especially around DCP. 
      Unfortunately, this is "currently not possible". 
    
    
    Why?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Am 12.08.2025 um 19:53 schrieb Javier
      Valiño Llamazares:
    
    
      
      Hi Detlef,
      
      
      Which mailing list are you referring to?
      The one indicated in my 2 first emails is open and anyone can
        subscribe. That is the one used for the spec ballots, precisely
        for them to be open.
      
      
      The only private mailing list are the ones used to call for
        meetings or discuss internal committee issues for the Steering
        and Specification committees. They don’t hold discussions, those
        are reflected on the minutes. 
      
      
      Best regards,
      
        
          
            Javier Valiño
              
            DataSpaces
                    Program Manager | Eclipse
                  Foundation Europe GmbH
                  
                 
           
         
        
        
          
            
            
Hallo Javier, 
            one more last remark. 
            While it may, or may not, be in line with the rules of
              this very 
              specific working group within the Eclipse Foundation to
              keep out 
              contributors from the private dataspace wg mailing list,
              it is 
              certainly not in line with the principle of
              openness I expected to 
              be followed in the Eclipse Foundation. 
            Best Regards,
                Detlef 
            
              
              -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
              
              
              
              This is the mail system at host smtp.ecsec.de.
              
              I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could
              not
              be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached
              below.
              
              For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
              
              If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
              delete your own text from the attached returned message.
              
              The mail system
              
              
<dataspace-wg-spec-request@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
              host mail.eclipse.org[198.41.30.200]
              said: 550 5.1.1 
<dataspace-wg-spec-request@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
              Recipient address
              rejected: User unknown in local recipient table (in reply
              to RCPT TO
              command)
              
            
 
            <Nachrichtenteil als Anhang.tmp>
            <ForwardedMessage.eml>
          
       
    
    -- 
Dipl. Inform. (FH)
Dr. rer. nat. Detlef Hühnlein
ecsec GmbH
Sudetenstrasse 16
96247 Michelau
Germany
Phone  +49 9571 948 1020
Mobile +49 171  9754980
Mail   detlef.huehnlein@xxxxxxxx
ecsec GmbH
Sudetenstrasse 16
96247 Michelau
Germany
Registered at Court of Coburg HRB 4622
EUID: DED4401V.HRB4622
Directors:
Tina Hühnlein
Dr. Detlef Hühnlein
This e-mail may contain strictly confidential information and is intended for the person to which it is addressed only. Any dissemination, even partly, is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail from your computer, including your mailserver. Except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct we accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by software or e-mail viruses.