Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>  
>
>>David RR Webber wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Joe,
>>>
>>>OK - despite Scott saying that BC-ICS is not IBMs answer to CAM,
>>>the fact remains that if you have CAM, which we do, CAM is available
>>>in open source - and an OASIS spec' - then there is absolutely no
>>>earthly reason why you would want to do ICS instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>We should not even consider a spec until it is in an open standards body.
>>    
>>
>
>Farrukh, could you please elaborate on your meaning of "consider"? 
>  
>
By "consider" I mean discuss as TC business. Sending an FYI is fine to 
keep people
informed on events. However, an open standards activity should not in my 
opinion
waste time discussing proprietary specs.

>Separately: I do think that it's wise for technical committees (OASIS
>and beyond) to be aware of what is out there, and - out of that set -
>what is likely to be advanced into an open standards consortium in the
>future, and how likely.
>  
>
I agree that "to be aware of what is out there" is important for any 
technologist.
That is why I see nothing wrong with sharing information as an FYI with 
the TC like
we often do.

My concern level rises when we as a TC start spending collective cycles 
on a
proprietary spec.

Thats said, we are all free to express whatever opinions we hold and 
participate in whatever
threads we want. If a discussion gets too off-topic then the TC chair 
can intercede.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh