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 08:58:39 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.21.255.252!unlisys!news.snafu.de!boavista!nobody
From: Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:01:28 +0200
Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH
Message-ID: <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de>
References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB7E244.4090105@snafu.de>
 <2dWMkL$GpNnq@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tc11-n67-106.de.inter.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
X-Accept-Language: en-us
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22486
Date: 2002-04-13T18:01:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <3CB7E244.4090105@snafu.de>, Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de> writes:
> 
>>Before the whole thread gets completly out of control,
>>i like to get your ideas how such a "fast" process could
>>be established?
>>
>>Such a process could have the following key attributes:
>>
>>- Public, all working results should be freely available
>>- Open to the open source community and companies if they
>>   comply to open source rules.
>>
> 
> If membership on the deliberative body is based on criteria
> other than the contribution one might make to the effort,
> such as the criterion of being some "open source" entity,
> that would be a mistake.

I am not sure if i am unerstanding correctly, but what i
like to ensure, that the standards, components etc are
available under open source licenses. I dont like to have
the situation that part of the output of such a group
is public and the other one not.

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.


Regards
    M.Erdmann

>