William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific > objection > is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the > proposal. > > The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are > measured on an individual basis and individual merit. > > This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate participation > by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and conveys > the wrong message for an ASF project. > > I have no objection to that standards committee growing more corporate > members. > But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and formative > input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not > acceptable. > If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions merits > participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct > involvement > as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an individual > contributor. > > The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has > shown > understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the > specification, > a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can > be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working > group." > > is an Oxymoron. > > This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented, and that > is not what the ASF does. If this can be addressed, my opinion of this effort > is otherwise without issues. One alternative is to modify this as I hint at > above. The other alternative is to determine the specific standards body > first > and vote participation up or down based on the body selected. > > Bill > > > > Cliff Schmidt wrote: >> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally >> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote >> for accepting the project for incubation. > > "a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project having > signed > the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification working group > through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides a > license > to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the > specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely open and > royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown > understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the > specification, > a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can > be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working > group. > On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure > that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as > posted in specifications. > > The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP specification > page of any of the members as listed above." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
