Sam Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:20 PM, David Lutterkort <lutter@redhat.com mailto:lutter@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 18:28 -0400, Bob McWhirter wrote: > I personally think that we might want to leverage the community > that'll also be building around REST-* (http://jboss.org/reststar). > There, the intent it to build RESTful APIs (but not necessarily > implementations) for things like messaging, transactions, and storage. Very cool; the world will definitely be a better place with agreement on API's in those areas.
This all sounds very similar to my vision for OGF's OCCI http://www.occi-wg.org/ and is exactly why I've split off core from infrastructure concerns - it definitely sounds like we should be collaborating more in future.
I'm open to creating any new specifications. Would it make sense to have a REST-* Cloud API specification?
FWIW REST-* sounds like something I could get behind but to be completely candid (as always) I'm disappointed to see similar governance http://www.jboss.org/reststar/community/governance.html shenanigans to those that undermined the WS-I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Interoperability: "/Red Hat, as the founder of REST-*, gets a permanent seat on the board. All other board members must be elected by the overall membership once a year/". If it's not too late then please reconsider this position.
What should it be changed to? So far the governance policies seem pretty liberal to me (since I wrote it). RHT as a permanent member of the board seems reasonable to me considering we started it and will be doing most of the work initially. Then again, if its a show stopper it will be removed.
Can we discuss your thoughts about governance more at:
http://groups.google.com/group/reststar-board
I'd like to have our discussion archived.
Thanks,
Bill