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 12:04:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!unlisys!news.snafu.de!boavista!nobody From: Michael Erdmann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:02:07 +0200 Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH Message-ID: <3CB880AF.5080407@snafu.de> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB7E244.4090105@snafu.de> <2dWMkL$GpNnq@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de> <8YmWznELCFXQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: tc07-n66-112.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:22491 Date: 2002-04-13T21:02:07+02:00 List-Id: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de>, Michael Erdmann writes: > >>Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> > >>>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 >> > > Is it ISO document charges that you are complaining about ? Yes, this is one face of the problem. > > >>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. Additionaly the term public does not cover only the availability but also the 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). But from my experiences if you start serious work unqualified members are droping out of the group quite fast because they are not able to follow any more and they are loosing there interest. But you are right, i dont have any universal answer for this issue. 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?? Regards M.Erdmann