[Xesam] The Ontology Open Source Project and OSCAF - 2nd try

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On 2 июня 2009 21:18:41 Roberto Guido wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 June 2009 19:38:42 Evgeny Egorochkin wrote:
> > It would be a very weak position for OSCAF to formally have absolutely no
> > influence on the standard it tries to promote.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > What are we missing:
>
> Equality.
>
> Since a single entity (OSCAF) has more influence than others, and that
> entity is sponsored by... I don't know, due list of current members still
> isn't online, "all animals are equal but someone is more equal than other".
>
> Of course members in OSCAF (or OSCAF itself, or a technical delegation, or
> a sub-organization...) would partecipate to the development cycle, exactly
> as any other individual, but that "influence" you mentioned

Having an influence means being heard, it's the same as you or me. Treating 
them like "you exist only to serve our purposes" is a weak position.

> is exactly the
> unclear point about involving a commercial structure on top of decision
> making process.

A commercial structure is not planned to be on top of the decision making 
process. An ontology maintainer is responsible for signing off patches, sanity 
checks and sticking to a decision making process OK'd by the community.

> As a side note: can you, OSCAF fans, agree about your positions and aims of
> your proposed structure? In previous mail Sebastian writes "this is pretty
> much what I have in mind", now you reply to disagree completely, it isn't
> so easy to understand you guys...

A quote from Sebastian's mail:
"OSCAF would not have any other power than the power of its 
members. And by that I mean the members that are also contributors to the 
ontology project."

How does this contradict my position? You propose to completely ignore OSCAF 
[members]. I propose to treat them and cooperate with them as an already 
established community.

P.S. I'm not an OSCAF fan. I would be just as fine if OSCAF didn't exist. 
However pissing off people simply for having incorporated a foundation doesn't 
make any sense.

--Evgeny