finding concensus (was: [Biocorba-l] BSANE and bioCORBA)

[Martin Senger]

[ ...another extracted topic from the previous message... ]

> > > 
> > > I don't want to force BioCorba development into the OMG development model
> > > of voting etc because I think it sucks, but I am more than happy to bend
> > > BioCorba to play well with BSANE in the Sequence area.
> > 
> > What is the alternative? I do not see voting as bad idea.
> 
> The alternative is classic open source "rough consensus" - works for IETF,
> Apache, BSD etc etc etc.
>

   Juha and me are not pushing the OMG voting model. It works fine,
probably much better than Ewan thinks, but it's not the point. Here we
will use "rough consensus" and we will hope that it will work (it might
actually :-)). Then, with results achieved here, Juha will go to the LSR
and present it there. It may not be hard because the only partner in
the submission of BSANE is NetGenics,Inc. and these guys are also on this
list, so they will hopefully participate in the "rough consensus" process.

   Martin

-- 
Martin Senger

EMBL Outstation - Hinxton                Senger@EBI.ac.uk     
European Bioinformatics Institute        Phone: (+44) 1223 494636      
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus             (Switchboard:     494444)
Hinxton                                  Fax  : (+44) 1223 494468
Cambridge CB10 1SD
United Kingdom                           http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger