Hi all, I still dont get why are we talking about OSCAF. We can have an open source project, where people join/leave freely, anybody can contribute and the terms of participation are open and clear as any other open source project. On the other hand, we can put our job under a strange foundation, with confusing membership policy (including paying for.... what?), and an unclear governance model. AFAICS there is no real job done in that foundation (Somebody wrote in this thead that there is no much activity). Really, as open source contributor i feel very unlikely to contribute to such organization. <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Trüg <<a href="mailto:strueg@mandriva.com">strueg@mandriva.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"> </div>exactly. If you read the other mails, we currently discuss to do the development on a sf page named oscaf which I am the maintainer of (and could also make Mikkel or Evgeny maintainer, too). Thus, it is a real open project hosting the ontologies. OSCAF is merely the gateway to the corporate world which will be very happy with out efforts + allows companies to have an "official" "person" to address. </blockquote><div> * I don't see any official person from OSCAF in the thread (They could answer what the foundation do, who is in there, in what terms, what do they do, and all the open questions in this thread.) * Get the impression that the open source community does the job and OSCAF gets the money * The infrastructure is sourceforge (free)... why to link it to oscaf? Everybody wants a common project to host _and improve_ the ontologies, but it must be in a open source way to attract contributors/users: clear terms, meritocracy and so on. Ivan </div></div>