qualifying projects#298
Conversation
de-facto standards often emerge from the community joining a consortia should not be necessary Signed-off-by: Sarah Allen <sarahallen@google.com>
|
Note on Kafka: it may have become a de-facto standard before being donated to the consortium. If CloudEvents existed before that point and if many Serverless companies were using the protocol with different implementations, I think we would have (should have?) considered it for inclusion. |
|
I am not sure how does this PR affect the other two open PRs, the changes here seem to be minor. |
|
The change appears to now allow for a |
|
Changing "of" to "or" completely changes the semantics of the sentence you're editing. I understand that you are looking to add a point, but you're breaking up a single term to do so. I believe it will help clarity if you could make your addition more explicit. Simply flipping "of" to "or" ends up completely contradicting what the term says. Here's how I interpret the intent of your edit: "Some widely used protocols have become de-facto standards emerging out of strong ecosystems of top-level multi-company consortia projects , and some out of the strong ecosystems of proprietary projects, and in either case largely in parallel to the evolution of the aforementioned standards stacks." The reason I wrote that paragraph is to introduce the notion of de-facto standards relative to consortia standards before discussing them jointly in the following. |
| ecosystems of top-level multi-company consortia projects, such as Apache Kafka, | ||
| and largely in parallel to the evolution of the aforementioned standards stacks. | ||
| ecosystems or top-level multi-company consortia projects and largely in parallel | ||
| to the evolution of the aforementioned standards stacks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we quantify "multi-company", e.g. more than three or another number?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as I mentioned in last week's call, given what I now know the intent of this change, I am not even sure this part is necessary since it's a very subject description. We have a more objective definition of de-facto standards in the text below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
multi-company consortia projects was already accepted and isn't being changed. If that needs to be defined, I could take a stab at that.
The change here is that it's sufficient for a project to have a strong ecosystem, and it's also sufficient to be built by a multi-company consortium. Previously the clauses were individually necessary and jointly sufficient; now they're each sufficient. I think it's a good change, because there's a lot of widely used technology that didn't emerge from multi-company consortia that we would ideally still interoperate with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I support this change. Just feel it will be better to quantify the "multi-company". You are right that my comment is not to this PR change, but rather to the existing text. It will be great if this PR can take care of this together. Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about s/multi-company consortia/consortia of three or more companies? In context, with some edits to make the grammar work, that becomes:
Some widely used protocols have become de-facto standards emerging out of strong ecosystems or projects from top-level consortia of three or more companies, created largely in parallel to the evolution of the previously mentioned standards stacks.
Does that work?
|
@ultrasaurus will you have time to address the comments in time for this week's call? This one might be blocking some other PRs that I'd like to see if we can resolve. |
|
@rachelmyers did you want to try to incorporate @clemensv's wording change too? |
|
"Proprietary" has a different connotation than what I think is meant here, but trying to take the spirit of @clemensv's suggestion, I would be happy with:
|
|
What do people think about @rachelmyers's suggested text? |
|
I'd like to see if we can resolve this on tomorrow's call - what do people think of @rachelmyers's proposed text in #298 (comment) ? |
|
I can live with it. |
|
@rachelmyers perhaps if no one raises any concern by around noon your time you can update the PR with the proposed text? Or, if you can't do it (directly or via @ultrasaurus ) let me know and I'll give it a try. |
|
The point of the paragraph is ownership and governance and how standards come about. Proprietary provenance is the new option introduced by this edit. The dictionary definition of proprietary is clear. Most services I work on are proprietary; it's a descriptor. People have connotations about that not being the same as FOSS developed under the umbrella of a neutral body and they're right about that. The change @rachelmyers now suggests makes it a count of companies here and a count of companies over there, which doesn't describe a distinction that I find to matter. That said, if we really need to make an edit, I clearly prefer @rachelmyers version because it's separating the new clause for proprietary (single company) projects that's being introduced by the edit. I'm not going to object to accepting @rachelmyers version. |
Signed-off-by: Sarah Allen <sarahallen@google.com>
ultrasaurus
force-pushed
the
qualifying
branch
from
9b164bb to
4f5fa4f
Compare
|
updated -- sorry for extra whitespace changes, but looks like github lets you ignore them for review thanks @clemensv @cathyhongzhang @rachelmyers for the feedback and suggested wording! |
|
Approved in the 9/20 call |
6 participants
de-facto standards often emerge from the community
joining a consortia should not be necessary
Signed-off-by: Sarah Allen sarahallen@google.com