[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [soa-iwg] Roadmap v0.5
|
Hi Mike,
For the record, I see this as an obvious case of a technically relevant
and community-focused thing (including Distributed OSGi/RFC119 in SOA)
as being effectively ignored/defeated because of working group
management/control/decision/participation structure.
FWIW, no matter what the EF working group participation rules, that
doesn't seem to me like a good structure for
a) getting cooperation/contribution/diversity in the working group itself
b) meeting SOA consumer community needs
At this point I will shut up and take my personal effort and my
project's contributions elsewhere.
Scott
Mike Milinkovich wrote:
Scott,
I have already explained that industry working groups are led by the member
companies which are participating in them. EclipseSource is not one of the
companies participating in the SOA IWG.
Jochen is the official delegate of EclipseSource to the Eclipse Foundation.
If he wishes to have EclipseSource formally join the SOA IWG, he is the
person who can do so.
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Scott Lewis
Sent: September-04-09 10:16 AM
To: SOA Industry Working Group
Subject: Re: [soa-iwg] Roadmap v0.5
Ok...so here's the situation as I understand it. In previous dialog,
I've brought up the relevance of OSGi 4.2's RFC119 (Distributed OSGi) to
SOA. The people on this list don't seem to actually dispute that
relevance (since OSGi 4.2 is quite relevant to the Runtime project in
general), but the existing roadmap makes no mention of Distributed OSGi,
RFC119, or even plain ol' OSGi.
I've proposed (repeatedly) that the soa-iwg roadmap be enhanced to
include RFC119 impl in the SOA package (runtime, not tools). Again,
people don't seem to be overtly opposing that, because...it seems to
me...the relevance of Distributed OSGi to SOA in the Runtime project is
undisputed.
In previous post to this list:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/soa-iwg/msg00047.html, Zsolt
suggested that I 'contribute' by suggesting changes to the roadmap, and
then in my previous post on this thread I did so by suggesting that some
mention of Distributed OSGi/RFC119 be included. Implicit in that
suggestion is the contribution to the working group package of a
working, reviewed, released, complete, compliant, implementation of the
RFC119 draft specification from ECF. For comments from the actual user
community on this implementation see references given on this post
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/soa-iwg/msg00051.html.
Ricco now vetos any such change to the Roadmap, and suggests that only
working group members maintain the roadmap document. This would make it
effectively impossible for any changes not from the hand of whoever
wrote the document (I'm not sure who it is, actually), to effect any
introduction of inclusion of RFC119 work into the Roadmap...as so far my
protestations about the relevance of RFC119 to the SOA working group
have been ignored, while not disputed. Further, membership in the
steering committee (the authors of the roadmap I suppose) is apparently
limited to those that apparently don't wish to include RFC119 work in
the SOA working groups and package, and by Board policy cannot be
otherwise (i.e. http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/soa-
iwg/msg00012.html).
So it seems to me that
1) The relevance of RFC119 work to the SOA working group (runtime, not
tools) is undisputed
2) There is no means that I can see to effect change to the roadmap to
include work on RFC119, as suggestions of relevant additions are so far
being ignored by the roadmap authors, and with Ricco's note offers of
direct changes are apparently being rejected
This doesn't seem right to me...but maybe someone can explain how it is
right.
Scott
. Ricco Deutscher wrote:
-1
This roadmap document should contain what the group plans to do, not
what the group not plans to do.
Moreover I suggest that the document will maintained by the members
only.
Ricco
Am 04.09.09 02:51 schrieb "Scott Lewis" unter
<slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hi Zsolt,
A search through this 0.5 version shows 0 references to 'RFC119'
or even
'OSGi'.
If I add these to this ppt, will you accept it?
Scott
Zsolt Beothy-Elo wrote:
>
> Please find attached version 0.5 of the roadmap. Following are the
> changes in the current version
>
> - Change Obeo Member Distro for both Milestones
>
> - Added involvement of Obeo for Repository feature
>
> - Remove Progress from the slides
>
> As nobody volunteered for the tool features for Milestone 2 we
should
> either completely remove them from the feature list (and removing
> slide 7) or replace them by more appropriate features that someone
is
> willing to implement. I kindly ask you for feedback about about
this
> topic.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Zsolt
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> soa-iwg mailing list
> soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
>
_______________________________________________
soa-iwg mailing list
soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
soa-iwg mailing list
soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
_______________________________________________
soa-iwg mailing list
soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
_______________________________________________
soa-iwg mailing list
soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
