Re: [osgi-wg] Introduction / Suggestion to clarify "Vision and Scope" /

[Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tom's assessment, so this response may just be academic/for entertainment purposes.

There's really no notion of "moving" a project to a working group. I may be splitting hairs...

The relationship between a working group and a specification project is very formal. It is one-to-one. It's not strictly true to say that a specification project is "owned" by a working group, but rather that a specification project works under the supervision (or purview) of a single working group. Specifically, the working group's specification committee has a decision making responsibility (via ballot) regarding whether or not a specification project's releases may produce a final specification.

The relationship between a working group and a "regular old Eclipse project" is less direct. A working group may "express interest" in any number of Eclipse projects. The relationship is many-to-many; there exists, potentially, many working groups that may express interest in any particular project. Strictly speaking, a working group does not "own" any Eclipse projects in that the working group doesn't have any direct influence over any activity that the project engages in. A working group influences projects by having its participant members' employees contribute to the projects in the usual way.

What "express interest" means is really up to the working group. Many working groups have web pages that list the projects that they are interested in, for example. 

It's also the case that the developers who have committer status on any of projects that a working group expresses interest typically form the constituency for committer representatives on the working group's committees. So... if the working group were to list Eclipse Equinox as one of its projects, the Equinox committers would join the Eclipse OSGi project committers to form the community of committers who vote on a representative for each of the working group committees. 

I'm not trying to suggest that you want to do this; I'm only describing what it means.

Wayne

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I want to make something clear that Dan Bandera already touched on.  Equinox is an open source project that provides various implementations of OSGi specifications, some which are used as reference implementations.  Equinox also has other technologies that provide the core foundation for the Eclipse Project platform (e.g. Eclipse Extension Registry).  There are no plans to move Equinox to the OSGi working group.  The separation between the various OSGi specification implementations (including Apache Felix, Apache Aries, Knopflerfish, Eclipse Equinox etc.) and the OSGi working group that defines the specification and compliance tests will remain separate.

 

Equinox will remain a viable source to provide reference implementations of the OSGi specification, but that is no different than the other open source projects that are not at the Eclipse Foundation (e.g. Apache).  The OSGi working group must remain open to accepting reference implementations from any appropriately licensed implementations.  Equinox does not receive special treatment in this regard.

Tom
 

 

 

----- Original message -----
From: "Christoph Läubrich" <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: osgi-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [osgi-wg] Introduction / Suggestion to clarify "Vision and Scope" / Membership description
Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2020 1:11 AM
 

Hello everyone,

as working for over ten years with OSGi in own projects and supporting
customer in their success with it as a freelancer I'm also interested to
join the new OSGi Working Group also.

One suggestion for the charter:

In the "Vision and Scope" section I think it would be good to clarify
what's the difference between "OSGi Working Group" and "OSGi
Specification Project" its a bit unclear how they relate, how they
differ because of the similar naming I can see that they might be confused.

I also think at least a small note about the "Eclipse Equinox" project
should be added as it already has provided OSGi Technology for years now
but seems to have adopted several aspects (DS, Console, ...) from the
Apache Felix Framework, so one might ask if it is planned for Equinox to
be collected under the new WG.

About the Membership section:
As OSGi Alliance already offers Membership to participate in OSGi
Technology I think the following points should be described here:
- How does "Eclipse OSGi Working Group" Membership differs form the
"OSGi Alliance" one? Do they relate in any way, e.g. if I'm member of
Eclipse OSGi WG will this maybe include "OSGi Alliance" membership
- If not why should I choose the one over the other? Or would it be
preferable to be member in both?
- What are the additional benefits of the "Eclipse OSGi Working Group"

best regards
Christoph


_______________________________________________
osgi-wg mailing list
osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-wg
 

 

_______________________________________________
osgi-wg mailing list
osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-wg

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22