From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-13 14:34:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!feed.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: 13 Apr 2002 16:34:03 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <$1qybpklMxZj@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB7E244.4090105@snafu.de> <2dWMkL$GpNnq@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de> <8YmWznELCFXQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3CB880AF.5080407@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1018733647 23863 192.135.80.34 (13 Apr 2002 21:34:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22492 Date: 2002-04-13T16:34:03-05:00 List-Id: In article <3CB880AF.5080407@snafu.de>, Michael Erdmann writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> Is it ISO document charges that you are complaining about ? > > Yes, this is one face of the problem. Personally I am happy to pay ISO document charges, but that is not required for the Ada Reference Manual. >>>the situation that part of the output of such a group >>>is public and the other one not. >>> >> >> Aside from that, what output is not public ? > > When is is not available on the net in a server from where > you can download the information you need. Although that definition is not universally agreed, how do you feel the Ada specification does not match that definition ? Have you looked at http://www.adapower.com ? > Additionaly the term public does not cover only the > availability but also the licensing. What aspect of the Ada documentation involves licensing ? >>>May be a better term would be: >>> >>>- Open to everybody who accepts the fact that his working >>> results will be put unter open source license. >>> >> >> So you would admit to the deliberative body anyone who >> agreed to that, no matter how otherwise unqualified >> they might be. That seems quite wrong to me. >> > What means unqualified? This is the problem i have with > the JPC. There an executive board selects experts. The > experts will be choosen based in the priorities of the > executive board which is founded by SUN (i think). I have not heard of such a problem with Ada. > Anyhow something like this is already exisiting > > http://www.ada-auth.org > > Maybe this orginisation could be reshaped slightly > to create a larger momentum on the Ada 95 community. > > What do you think?? I don't think there are any changes that can be made in that area to create a larger momentum in the Ada community.