qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Qpid working with AMQP Working Group
Date Fri, 25 May 2007 18:57:46 GMT


Thanks, this is helpful. The JIRA should be viewable, I will get that 
followed up. With regard to the schedule that is currently a much 
debated topic to what the next release 0-11 will focus on ( 0-10 is 
about done). I agree that it would be good to have that information for 
planning purposes. At this point the thoughts are to Security and 
Management but the Working Group has not completed that debate started 
at the F2F they had in NYC.

I will post your issue found on the amqp.org site to the AMQP Working Group.


Tomas Restrepo wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>> (3) Openness of participation in the specification.
>> This is a long section in cliff mail and the thread that resulted is
>> even longer.... To best sum up the issue I quote from Cliff's mail
>> again
>> "If an Apache project is based on a specification that is driven by a
>> closed set of authors, including some, but not all committers, how can
>> the technical decisions of the project truly be based on an open
>> meritocracy?"
>> --> the Working Group has seen individuals join the group and provide
>> very good feedback to the specification, so far no-one has requested
>> that we proceed or require/work any of the options suggested by Cliff.
>> If needed I can outline them.
>> It thus seems that the underlying question that was open at time of
>> acceptance into incubator was "Are those contributing to Qpid able to
>> interact with and view/influence information from the AMQP Working
>> Group?" Refreshing my memory, I have searched the Qpid lists and could
>> not find any issues between the Qpid project and the Working Group. 
> I'm not sure what all the fuzz is about, however, fwiw, here's a couple of
> comments:
> 1- I check on the protocol mailing lists every now on then, and it can
> certainly be very enlightening and it's very useful to see those discussions
> out in the open; I think it's very valuable for all people involved. Not all
> information seems to be public though, and that can hinder sometimes the
> process (for example, last I checked the jira for the working group was
> private and seeing as how many of the posts on the mailing lists archives
> reference issues there, it's sometimes hard to really understand what's
> being said).
> 2- As for interaction with the working group; well, I know several of the
> qpid project members are involved in the working group, and that's a good
> thing. I once tried to get access to provide feedback on the specifications
> (following the process outlined in
> http://www.amqp.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=AMQP_User) but didn't have
> much success there; so I'm not quite sure what the process should be. 
> Even though I personally have some concerns about portions of the protocol
> specs and the direction it is headed, there's not really a good way to
> provide feedback on that at this point and I've preferred to keep my
> comments on the spec itself off the qpid lists, as I don't want to clutter
> the project's list with other stuff.
> So given that, my opinion is that the current mechanism isn't really all
> wide open. It's good that it's transparent, but seems to be pretty much
> read-only from where I stand (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong
> with that).
> Also, fwiw, I do think the lack of a clearer schedule from the working group
> on the specification process hinders a bit planning for the qpid project, as
> evidenced a bit by the recent discussions on what to implement and when and
> 0.8 vs. 0.9 vs. 0.10., but that's a different matter altogether.
> Just my $0.00000000002 cents worth :)
> Tomas Restrepo
> http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message