[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [soa-iwg] ECF and SOA initiative
|
Hi Mike,
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
<stuff deleted>
My honest belief is that if you talk to the committer reps that you will
find that they are supportive of industry working groups in terms of both
concept and implementation. This was not a contentious topic.
I would imagine not. But my response would be this: ask a random
committer how many of them even know of this policy, the Board's
spproval decision and the implications WRT committer member
participation, I would guess that very few would know...as I did not.
And I would say that I pay relatively close attention to what happens on
the Board, with the working groups, and what the committer Board reps
are doing, and communicate with some of them more than compared to the
'average commiter'. I understand that as an issue this is not strictly
in your (Mike/EMO's) domain, but rather in the Committer Board rep's.
And I do understand (as a former committer rep), that they have a much
larger set of interests to represent (~600 or whatever the count is)
relative to other Board members, and that they also have other (perhaps
perceived as larger) fish to fry WRT other Board-level issues.
In fact I
recall enthusiasm. But my almost-50 memory could be faulty :-)
Fine...but they plan, do they not? Do they create requirements for the
interested/appropriate projects? (like, say, ECF wrt SOA). As I
haven't been on a undustry working group steering committee so I frankly
do not know what they do, but the process document would indicate that
they do plan, create requirements, identify market needs, etc.
FWIW, the process document is a framework. Each IWG's charter is expected to
lay out in more detail what the role of its steering committee will be.
Because of that I would recommend focusing your attention on the charter.
Ok. Going back to the charter document I would return to my original
question for the SOA working group:
1) As a functioning mature Runtime project, and the current implementer
of OSGi distributed services standards for Equinox/Runtime project (i.e.
RFC119/Distributed OSGi), doesn't it make sense for the ECF project to
be included (in some manner) in the SOA working group's activities? We
are, and will continue to be working quite heavily on distributed osgi
services, discovery, messaging, remote services, rest-based service,
etc., in Equinox/Runtime project and it seems to me that this will
likely have some relevance to the SOA working group.
2) I still think that the steering committee requirement (steering
committee made up of strategic members is exclusive for no good
reason...i.e. why wouldn't committer members who had something to add be
welcome?), but I understand that it's part of what the current
Board-approved process is...and if this working group chooses to follow
that to the letter then fine.
As the project lead for ECF, of these two question 1 is the more
important to me (notwithstanding the diversion of Mike/my/Oisin's dialog
about the process/policy).
And in the case of requirements (like, say, ECF wrt SOA), unless the
interested players are willing to actually allocate resources to the
projects they are hoping to impact the normal rules of open source apply.
The projects themselves ultimately decides what requirements they address.
Indeed.
Scott
