Heard a rumour that the ccs specs are published. Now that the nda has been silently (!) dropped there's no restriction to publish and discuss them here now is there? ;-) In how far an eventual evolution to a micro services architecture (http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html) will be kept in mind?
I would be happy with a small brms included. Not an interface to that expensive and vast corticon, just a small one written in abl. Easy integration possibilities with an os solution like http://openl-tablets.org/documentation/apologia would be nice. Furthermore dynamic catalog generation for datasets with more than one table. I could use that for batchmode insert of orders f.e. (so not first save an order and afterwards save orderlines one by one). Mailed this link before with a demo: http://eurekaaddons.co.uk/products/web-so-for-sage-200/ nice eh?
Ok, but i still don't like the way this is proposed. I would like to decide for myself if and how i would like to participate. And if i attend or not attend meetings etc.
As just a member of the CCS community there is no obligation to attend any meetings. That's only expected once you volunteer to join a spec team.
Architect of the SmartComponent Library and WinKit
> That's what the CCS community is intended for.
> Yes, we can do a better job of describing these steps/process . And yes, the NDA was a burden (as was the signup
> process). But hopefully it's now as easy to sign up as it was for these general communities.
"You'll only be asked to agree on the charter, contributor and release license agreements, and provide some additional information that will remain private." (Jean)
I just don't like / trust this. I did not have to go throught it to sign up for general communities. Moreover without being subscribed to a couple of groups I can still read messages (and decide if I'm interested to join discussions etc).
Having clicked through and read the charter and contributor agreement I can confirm that, so far, there is currently no NDA.
There were 18 or 20 ridiculous qualifying questions that seem designed to wear down and discourage potential participants but I persevered and filled them out to the best of my rather limited ability to put up with that sort of nonsense.
Now I get to wait "up to 10 days" to see if I am approved. It is a very popular project so not everyone can be accepted.
The contributor agreement does seem useful as it ensures that submitted material is unencumbered by secret patents etc.
Removing the NDA is definitely good. Kudos for that!
That's good information. I definitely got the wrong idea from reading the charter.
I am puzzled why the process isn't generally more open. The charter says:
Progress is dedicated to providing an open platform for the exchange of ideas and, ultimately, the agreement of specifications for each component.
Locking something called "community" behind a closed forum in an already login limited site doesn't seem very "open" to me.
I'm not sure what a "community draft" is. That term isn't defined in the charter. There is a 30 to 90 day participant only review period for "community review drafts". After another two weeks of finalization approved specs are supposed to be released to the "broader OpenEdge community". So I think we must be waiting for something in one of those phases?
FWIW -- I also do not see the benefit of keeping review drafts in hiding. A "public comment period" is a very useful thing in a specifications process. It would be a pity to put months of work into something and then release it to find out that it has problems that could have been solved if a few more people had looked it over and commented on it.
Tom, you are a member now.
"It would be a pity to put months of work into something and then release it to find out that it has problems that could have been solved if a few more people had looked it over and commented on it".
Tom, I believe this is why they are asking peeps to sign up not only for the community but also to consider signing up to participate on the committee teams; to get more people involved to not only vet the spec but become engaged with providing content.
Tom, I am not a lawyer. And I am glad I am not.
Challenge from a legal perspective is, that you own the intellectual property in your comments. So part of joining the community is accepting the contributor license agreement - so that it's clear to everybody that if your comment becomes part of the (modified) specification everybody knows that you have accepted to release your IP under the CCS terms.
> And yes, the NDA was a burden (as was the signup process). But hopefully it's now as easy to sign up as it was for these general communities.
The signup is still a PITA. Way over the top.
You definitely met the 10 day SLA :)
I am equally glad of my "not a lawyer" status.
None the less I find it curious that others can do these things successfully without all of this rigamarole.
I am encouraged that Progress has finally started to see the light on pointless NDAs. I will try to remain optimistic that it is but the first step towards whole-heartedly embracing an open community.
I don't trust this excuse for dark room sessions at all. And I'm very very sure this is not the best way to benefit from what is the potential in this community. That might be more than expected by some drs members. But that's implicit to 'potentials' isn't it.
Marian, that was the case, but is so no longer. Everybody who previously signed the NDA has now agreed to waive it. People can participate in the community without the requirement of a Non Disclosure agreement.
We are working on eliminating the number of items you must supply when signing up for the process. We have heard that from a number of sources.
People have asked for read access even if you haven't taken the steps to sign up for the community. Well to allow read access to the world, we had to eliminate the NDA first didn't we :-).
Now that we have removed the NDA we can consider it.