OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Comments on SCA-Bindings recent emails


Hi,

Chet, thanks for the clarifications. Your note highlighted an interesting point:

"TC is free to craft and revise conformance clauses so that they specify the conditions that define conforming implementations to the TC's satisfaction, whether to all of a spec's components collectively, or to each separately, or to some combinations but not others."

Eric raised this previously and perhaps the following could be a way for the WS Binding Specification to move forward on terms that would be amenable to all: decoupling the specifications for conformance purposes such that each stands on its own. For example, a runtime would not need to conform to the Assembly, Policy,and WS Binding specifications as a minimum conformance bar. A runtime could choose to conform to individual specifications. Note this does not affect any of the Exit Criteria as they have already been satisfied by two runtimes (Apache Tuscany and Fabric3), which have demonstrated conformance to all mandatory and optional normative statements of those specifications using the OASIS-supplied test suites. 

This approach would allow each specification to stand on its own. It would also make it easier for organizations and open source projects to use and promote SCA by reducing the barrier to entry which is currently quite high. Finally, it would resolve the issue of not having licensing obligations triggered until a CS specification is finalized (as an open source implementor of SCA, the latter is very important to me as it gives projects important legal protection). 

Would Oracle be amenable to this approach for moving the specifications forward? I don't mean to single one entity out but the Oracle members did state that their No vote was a corporate decision so I think it is fair to address them as a group.

Jim 

 


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote:
Members of the SCA-Bindings TC, 

Some of the conversation on this TC list following the recent unsuccessful Committee Specification approval vote has come to our attention.  Obviously, our members are free to act within our rules as the member experts on each TC see fit. We do, however, want to share our reactions to what we've heard.

First, OASIS rules are carefully designed to make sure that no one can long block progress should other members desire to advance the work.  Approval of a Committee Specification requires a Special Majority Vote - minimum 2/3 voting in favor.  All members are free to place their experts on a TC; rosters are visible in advance and everyone can do the arithmetic necessary to support the result they desire.  The TC is free to augment its membership and re-vote as its members see fit, as has always been the case and generally has resulted in open and fair outcomes for 20 years now.

Second, we noted some of the concerns voiced about licensing obligations, when they are triggered and how they apply to broad versus narrow conformance clauses.   It's correct that the patent licensing obligations under the OASIS IPR Policy depend on the work achieving Committee Specification approval.  Once that occurs, they relate back to earlier contributions made by each obligated member, under the terms of our rules.   (We also note that no patent claims have been announced against SCA-Bindings: see https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/sca-bindings/ipr.php) Regarding the conformance clauses, the TC is free to craft and revise conformance clauses so that they specify the conditions that define conforming implementations to the TC's satisfaction, whether to all of a spec's components collectively, or to each separately, or to some combinations but not others.  This is exactly the kind of thing that OASIS properly leaves to the experts in the TC to debate and decide.

In TCs like this one, where there is a member section relationship, the member section may also have some influence over the TC: but also does not ultimately control the TC's decisions about the disposition of its draft specifications. 

Best, 

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html 

TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin

Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter:        http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]