OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Approval Voting Page
From MemberWiki
Voting Page for Approving OpenAjax Hub 2.0
This wiki page contains the formal voting form that allows members to vote on whether to approve the release of the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification. These membership votes represent recommendations to the OpenAjax Alliance Steering Committee, which will review the membership voting and then subsequently decide whether to formally approve the release of the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification.
The member voting period is from July 8, 2009 to July 14, 2009 (11:59pm US-PT). If the member voting shows a consensus towards approval, then the Steering Committee will vote after the members vote.
Background
The Interoperability Working Group, in conformance with its charter, has been working on OpenAjax Hub 2.0 (formerly, OpenAjax Hub 1.1) for over two years. Although the Interoperability Working Group did the majority of the work, multiple other committees played supportive roles in the effort:
- The Interoperability Working Group was formally chartered to work on Hub 2.0 and made most of the contributions
- The IDE Working Group has worked in parallel with the Interoperability WG on a complementary specification, the OpenAjax Metadata 1.0 Specification. The metadata spec includes the definition of OpenAjax Widgets, a widget interoperability standard designs to fit in well with OpenAjax Hub 2.0 and that uses Hub 2.0 APIs for widget publish/subscribe services
- The Security Task Force coordinated on the key security features that are in Hub 2.0 and has coordinated on single sign-on issues
- The Communications Hub TF produced technical proposals that led to the initial set of APIs for (what was then called) Hub 1.1
A key source code contribution for Hub 2.0 came from IBM Research, which contributed its "SMash" open source technology for secure client-side mashups to IBM (see [1]). The SMash technology showed how to achieve component isolation and secure message passing in today's browsers without plugins, leveraging the fragment identifier messaging (FIM) technique. OpenAjax Hub 2.0 includes the SMash and FIM techniques inside, with various extensions (e.g., HTML postMessage() for newer browsers) and API modifications to improve the ease by which vendors can integrate Hub 2.0 into their products.
The Interoperability Working Group devoted significant effort towards:
- A complete and detailed formal Specification (the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification)
- A feature-complete, commercial-grade open source reference implementation
- A comprehensive test suite (included in the open source project)
- A multiple-vendor interoperability event in 2008 (the 2008 InteropFest where various companies integrated their products and technologies with OpenAjax Hub and OpenAjax Widgets (see [press announcement])
- A supplemental white paper that introduces how to use Hub 2.0 within a mashup assembly application
- An open source sample mashup application that demonstrates how to build a mashup assembly application using OpenAjax Hub 2.0 and OpenAjax Widgets (defined in the OpenAjax Metadata 1.0 Specification)
The Interoperability Working Group voted in early June 2009 to approve the advancement of the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification for approval. Per our formal process (see Members Agreement and Development Process), we held a Release Review phone call to allow all members to ask questions and provide feedback (see OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Release Review). It is now time for the full membership of OpenAjax Alliance to cast their votes on whether to approve the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification.
Voting Form
Anyone who has a login to this wiki can vote. To vote, simply choose YES, NO, or OTHER from the popup menu below, then press on the "Submit Vote" button. Note: You must press "Submit vote" for your vote to be registered.
- A YES vote represents a simple +1 vote that says you vote to approve the release of the OpenAjax Hub 2.0 Specification.
- A NO vote indicates that you disapprove the proposal. If you vote NO, please provide supplemental comments that explain why you disapprove.
- Choose OTHER for all other cases, such as when you generally approve of the proposal, but believe changes should be made. If you vote OTHER, please provide supplemental comments that explain your point of view.
The table after the "Submit vote" button shows a list of all votes cast so far, including any votes that you have cast.
If you encounter any bugs or other problems when attempting to vote or view the voting results, please report these issues immediately to jferrai(at)us.ibm.com.
NOTE: The voting period has closed.
Votes Table
| Voter | Company | Vote | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Ferraiolo | IBM | YES | |
| Anil Sharma | VertexLogic | YES | |
| Alessandro Alinone | Lightstreamer | YES | |
| Steve Repetti | RadWebTech | YES | |
| Fabio Rotondo | OS3 | YES | |
| David Boloker | IBM | YES | |
| Howard Weingram | TIBCO | YES | |
| Dave McAllister | Adobe | YES | |
| Kris Vishwanathan | IBM | YES | |
| T. Arun | Arimaan | YES | |
| Bertrand Le Roy | Microsoft | YES | |
| Deepak Alur | Jackbe | YES | |
| Matthias Hertel | MatthiasHertel | YES | |
| Manos Batsis | abiss | YES | |
| Stéphane Mariel | RIFT | YES | |
| Bert Halstead | Curl | YES | |
| Kevin Hakman | TIBCO | YES | |
| Jonathan Bond-Caron | Goldeneye | YES |
