marbux wrote:
> Wrong again. So far we're building off what Rob Weir wants. But he has
> a big company that will pay any damages awarded against him. The rest
> of us need to be more cautious, expressly because we have 800-pound
> gorillas who created the interop mess to begin with walking amongst
> us.
I feel I am out of my depths with this part of the discussion, but there
seems to be one little point I think is being overlooked.
This discussion list - as it stands right this moment, is only defining
the framework/charter for which the official TC (once
chosen/elected/formed) will use to fill in a lot of the blanks.
We seem to be getting confused between forming the charter, and solving
the goals of the TC before the TC is formed.
There ARE some grey areas here though. Politics can influence the
charter. We need to identify these grey areas, discuss them, and make
the charter fair to the goals of Implementation, Interoperability, and
Conformance. If there is any favoritism introduced into the charter, I
would hope it would be favoring those goals - not any particular
vendor/person/organization.
Regarding liabilities - this seems to be an issue for concern with the
TC itself. But that TC has not been formed yet. Of course, I'm not a
lawyer, nor pretend to be... I just don't see how having a discussion
about the way to approach a problem opens me up to liability. However I
do see the liability issue if/when I contribute to actually solving the
problem (writing code, etc.)
As I said, I feel I'm out of my depths. But it really seems to me that
we have confused talking about what/how the TC should do, and "being"
the TC and trying to solve those problems.
My thoughts.
Shawn
