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 10:19:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!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 12:18:45 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <8YmWznELCFXQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB7E244.4090105@snafu.de>
 <2dWMkL$GpNnq@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1018718329 16080 192.135.80.34 (13 Apr 2002
 17:18:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:18:49 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22489
Date: 2002-04-13T12:18:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3CB85658.5050406@snafu.de>, Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de> 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 ?

> 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 ?

> 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.