| Re: [m2m-iwg] Relevance of Polarsys for M2M |
Werner, Why do you think that Polarsys needs to justify its existence by being relevant to the future of M2M? They are two completely different groups with completely different goals and technologies. There is absolutely no reason why Polarsys has to “fit” with any other IWG, or for that matter any other Eclipse project. Overlap, confusion and outright competition is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of Eclipse. Eclipse is not a corporation that has to present a cohesive “story” with a “consistent architecture” to the marketplace. That said, there have been numerous cordial conversations between the various groups, and we certainly expect that to continue. Asking the m2m list about the Polarsys business model is a little weird, no? For the record, the Polarsys fees are required because they want to build and maintain a separate forge, brand and namespace. That requires resources above and beyond what the Eclipse Foundation provides its projects. Polarsys is most certainly not a cash cow. Mike Milinkovich +1.613.220.3223 From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of UOMo Hi, I was curious about how PolarSys fits in with both M2M and Automotive? So far, it sounds very vague and fuzzy, more like a license thing than actual technology. "Embedded and Mission Critical Stuff that must be supported for 80 or 100 years", sounds more like trying to offer support contracts on top of other projects and initiatives like M2M or Automotive. The whole charter and rather excessive fee-structure without a clear prospect of what you're paying for http://www.eclipse.org/org/industry-workgroups/polarsys_charter.php also makes Polarsys seem more like a cash-cow than something technically relevant to the future of M2M. As Benjamin is Mentor of the first Polarsys project, can you shed some light on that, Ben? Thanks, Werner |