Interoperability Minutes 2006-08-30
From MemberWiki
Full minutes: http://www.openajaxalliance.org/member/wiki/index.php/Interoperability_Minutes_2006-08-30
Contents |
Attendees
- Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
- Adam Peller <apeller@us.ibm.com>
- Arno Puder <arno@puder.org>
- Craig McClanahan <craig.mcclanahan@sun.com>
- Chris Matthews <cmatthews@elinkbiz.com>
- Greg Murray <greg.murray@sun.com>
- Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Kevin Hakman <khakman@tibco.com>
- Kin Blas <jblas@adobe.com>
- Lindsey Simon <lsimon@finetooth.com>
- Phil Berkland <berkland@us.ibm.com>
- Rama Gurram <rama.gurram@sap.com>
- Steve Adams <sadman@curl.com>
- Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Absent
- Bert Halstead <rhh@curl.com>
- Bjoern Mueller <Bjoern.Mueller@softwareag.com>
- Brodi Beartusk <bbeartus@bea.com>
- Chris Jolley <jolleyc@bea.com>
- Chris Schalk <chris.schalk@oracle.com>
- Coach Wei <coach@nexaweb.com>
- David Frankel <david.frankel@sap.com>
- David Kranz <kranz@curl.com>
- David Temkin <temkin@laszlosystems.com>
- Eddie O\'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com>
- Eric Nguyen <ericn@mercedsystems.com>
- Erik van Dongen <evandongen@seagullsoftware.com>
- Gary Horen <ghoren@bea.com>
- Hyther Nizam <hyther@adventnet.com>
- Ian Wenig <ian@zoho.com>
- James Douma <jdouma@ebusiness-apps.com>
- James Margaris <jmargaris@nexaweb.com>
- Jason Wadsworth <wadsbone@thefrontside.net>
- Javier Gallego <Javier.Gallego@softwareag.com>
- Jennifer Taylor <jetaylor@adobe.com>
- Jeremy Chone <jchone@adobe.com>
- John Crupi <john.crupi@jackbe.com>
- John Janetos <jjanetos@laszlosystems.com>
- Joonas Lehtinen <joonas.lehtinen@itmill.com>
- Jorge Taylor <jotaylor@adobe.com>
- Juan Dexeus <Juan.Dexeus@in2.es>
- Ken Fyten <ken.fyten@icesoft.com>
- Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Luke Birdeau <lbirdeau@tibco.com>
- Marc Englund <marc.englund@itmill.com>
- Michael Peachey <mpeachey@tibco.com>
- Patrick Chanezon <chanezon@google.com>
- Raju Vegesna <raju@zoho.com>
- Ross Dargahi <ross.dargahi@zimbra.com>
- Ruben Daniels <ruben@javeline.nl>
- Rüdiger Herrmann <rherrmann@innoopract.de>
- Sami Ekblad <sami.ekblad@itmill.com>
- Steven Pothoven <pothoven@us.ibm.com>
- Vishnu Vettrivel <vvettrivel@vircon.com>
- William Shulman <will@mercedsystems.com>
Agenda
members agreement
Arno Puder asks for a summary.
Jon: address ip issues with materials contributed by members, make sure they can be distributed to the public on a royalty-free basis. In order to achieve this, an identifiable management committee needs to be established to make decisions on behalf of the alliance. Members vote for 7 people to serve on committee. Steering committee approves release of specifications, material, creates working groups. IP modeled after other open source organizations.
Jon: We consider ourselves to be like an activity or working group in W3C
Jon: Vote for steering committee at next meeting. You must sign agreement to vote.
meeting
Jon: We still don't have a host. Looking for volunteers. Contact Jon.
Jon: Proposed move to yahoo groups. Marketing committee wants to do this. Suggested transition on Oct 5.
Adam: Why not mailman?
Jon: Craig Becker couldn't get it to work with our ISP. Assuming we cannot solve that problem, and rather than endure the pain of switching ISPs, just move to Yahoo.
issues with SourceForge
Jon: CLA issues. At SourceForge, there are no requirements or click-through agreements that a contributor has to go through.
Alex: Dojo maintains a CLA list manually.
Craig: Apache works the same way
Jon: We need a rigorous approach to dealing with contributed code. Jon seeks agreement on this.
Jon: Jon also seeks agreement on using Apache 2.0 license for contributions. Current member agreement embraces this.
<silence implies approval?>
Jon: two approaches: one is to follow apache, dojo and have CLA. two (IBM's suggestions) member companies will have already agreed to Apache v2 implicitly by signing agreement, so we can have a much lighter weight process where all contributions must come from members. All individuals must acknowledge that their contribution is covered under corporate member agreement.
kin: mozilla has two-tiered review process where module owners and super users approve code.
consensus that member contributions only is too restrictive, and that the member agreement may be too heavy for individuals
alex: hybrid where member agreement is a shortcut, but CLA is still an option
jon: will take that back to IBM lawyers
jon: chicken/egg issues: can you have a CLA without a members agreement?
jon: took Apache agreements (like Dojo did) with global replace of Apache Foundation with Dojo Alliance and changed addresses and phone numbers
jon: one catch - language said that code is contributed on a royalty-free basis under assumption that project will be managed according to its mission and by-laws. What are corresponding words for us? Jon put "consistent with our Purpose and members agreement" Open to other wording
Meritocracy
Jon: loose approach, Coach thought people should prove themselves, get promoted to committer status
Arno: agrees
Kevin: What's the test, who administers it, etc.
Arno: Typically, reputation over time. No formal test.
Arno: Benevolent dictator model
Adam: also Eclipse/Apache model of committer nominating someone, then a vote
Craig: Apache also has PMC
Jon: OAA has Jon with James as a backup
Craig: Board delegates to PMC which has decision making rights
Jon: We should keep things lightweight and fast moving. Suggests we not create anything as formal as Apache/Eclipse yet. We need to get started, and we only have a few k-lines of js. If this project grows, we can add formality
Craig: Do initial members get a seat as committers?
Jon: We should err on the side of fewer committers and add. Easier than removing people.
<general agreement>
Jon: is there agreement on earning committer rights? consistent involvement + quality
Ted: ok to be vague and say that contributions will get you commit access
Jon: who is on initial list?
Ted: the original authors (~3 people?)
Jon: Lindsey, Alex, James. Jon as PM. TIBCO?
Kevin: contributed ideas and concepts, but not code yet. Not on initial list.
Jon: Keep process fuzzy for now. Set committer guidelines later.
Next Steps
Jon: Action item to see how we can get contributions legally clean from others than original 6 member companies
