Richard, By having the "why should Felix..."-attitude, you solidify a stalemate stance. It creates a "why should Aries..."-attitude on the other side, for instance pointing out "there are many examples of multiple spec implementations at ASF".
I'm not suggesting that Felix should bend over backwards, but instead of putting up demands, join and influence from the inside. If Felix shows humility and willingness to come to a solution, then I expect the Aries group to do the same... -- Niclas On Sep 4, 2009 1:33 AM, "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am aware and I certainly didn't know about it in advance. And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix". I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should go into Felix, I too think it should have its own identity. I was always only ever referring to the independent OSGi spec implementations. I was arguing that Felix is a good place to work on them, since it is part of what it is trying to achieve. Further, I don't really understand the implication that somehow the burden is now on the Felix community to go and contribute to Aries on OSGi spec implementations just because of this proposal, when there was no attempt to work with the Felix community on creating OSGi spec implementations in the first. The only conclusions I see being drawn by people who have invested very little in Felix is that we should dismantle the Felix charter so that we can accommodate the fact that some people don't want to play with us. At that rate, I stand by my previous "vote" and otherwise people can do whatever they want in Aries. -> richard On 9/3/09 13:23, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > Kevan, > > Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropp... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: genera...
