SO it’s been a year+ since the last meeting notes. Has one occurred since last year? what’s on the horizon? will there be a so-called un/pack processing unit for gl2? a geometry pu? 
– ak
Yeah, I’m quite interested in how and when the Geometry Shader will be implemented in OpenGL, too.
They will shoot themselves in the leg , as they usually do, and will delay a coherent implementation for years 
And they will finally doit, it will be a GLSL extension. And after that they will wonder why DirectX becomes slowly better than OpenGl , which is smashed in the ground by ARB and IHVs .
=(((((
True. When DX 10 and Windows Vista are out, i will definitely check it out. I really like the philosophy and the clear layout of OpenGL, but in the end, that’s not what counts.
At the moment, it’s not what MS does, but what the ARB does, that makes me consider to switch to D3D.
Jan.
The ARB meeting notes are no longer made public because the lawyers got involved.
“Mr President, we’re here for your protection.”
The ARB is no longer asleep at the switch, but this is hard to see from the outside. Those who know, aren’t allowed to say (yet). Stay tuned.
The ARB meeting notes are no longer made public because the lawyers got involved.
There’s 3 types of lawyers:
Defensive: You’ve been sued/arrested, and you need some defense.
Offensive: Somebody’s stomping on you and you need to bring legal action against them.
Special Teams: Think accountants. Or lawyers who specialize in making out wills or other contracts. That kind of stuff. The drudgery that needs doing, but isn’t terribly sexy or interesting.
Now, I could see any of these three getting involved with the ARB. The ARB might need some Special Teams lawyers in order to incorporate or somehow change how the ARB works in some fashion that requires contract work.
The ARB may have been sued (perhaps by Microsoft) and needs Defensive legal council.
Or, the ARB may be filing suit (perhaps against Microsoft, say, over the Windows Vista issue), and needs Offensive legal council.
Can we at least learn which one it is?
The ARB is no longer asleep at the switch, but this is hard to see from the outside. Those who know, aren’t allowed to say (yet). Stay tuned.
Ill beleive when I see it. Would take a wonder to shake ARB from it;s slumber. Ill stay tuned, hopefully to see something pozitive, and not anohter failure of the mangitude of OpenGl 2.0 and superbuffers.
In the year 2006 , I dont even have render targets in GL core. And I have to relay on yet another extension to use a D24S8 format. Which ATI, a comany which seems decided to not offer OpenGL support to its customers, seems to ignore.
Thanks ARB. If this would have been in core, ATI would have been forced to have it from long ago. Thanks for forcing us to work with pixelbuffers.
Originally posted by gold:
The ARB meeting notes are no longer made public because the lawyers got involved.
Oh, that’s interesting to hear. But why didn’t they told us?
Originally posted by gold:
[b]The ARB meeting notes are no longer made public because the lawyers got involved.
“Mr President, we’re here for your protection.”
The ARB is no longer asleep at the switch, but this is hard to see from the outside. Those who know, aren’t allowed to say (yet). Stay tuned.[/b]
Thanks for letting is know but IMO, a message should have been posted much earlier. It would help to cut down this noise.
But why didn’t they told us?
no idea but often with NDAs youre not allowed to say youre under NDA. perhaps something similar applies?
whilst the ARB was once pretty glacial but over the last 3-5 years since opengl1.3 they seemed to of pulled there finger out. personally the committee is a far better choice than the directx way, (a practical rewrite of the api with every release, one company deciding for everyone (though in gl u have the option as well where a company can bring out an extension) etc)
Originally posted by Korval:
[b] [quote]The ARB meeting notes are no longer made public because the lawyers got involved.
There’s 3 types of lawyers:
…
Can we at least learn which one it is?[/b][/QUOTE]None of the above. Its all about intellectual property. One dynamic which slowed down progress was fear of sharing ideas or buying into a competitor’s extension, only to be sued later for infringing their IP. The new framework precludes public sharing of meeting notes and participation by non-members but facilitates sharing of ideas within the ARB, which is a Good Thing.
I’m not sure what kind of press release would have been appropriate for sharing this information. Maybe there was one, I forget.
None of the above. Its all about intellectual property.
That would fall under “Special Teams”. But I understand what you’re getting at.
The new framework precludes public sharing of meeting notes and participation by non-members but facilitates sharing of ideas within the ARB, which is a Good Thing.
As such, shouldn’t OpenGL now be called "Closed"GL? If non-members can’t participate, and membership is fairly costly, then it’s hard to call it “Open” anymore.
Maybe the ARB should consider, not meeting notes, but more along the lines of publishing a set of upcoming changes and so forth? Just so that we know the members aren’t partying and liquoring up at the meetings instead of working?
I’m not sure what kind of press release would have been appropriate for sharing this information. Maybe there was one, I forget.
Wouldn’t this constitute a change in the ARB’s by-laws? If so, if the information in the ARB faq is still valid, someone should be able to at least request a copy of the by-laws to see what changed.
Your understanding of the workings of the ARB is incorrect. Most of your questions are answered here .
You have informed people posting.
Take the information, pipe down and move on.
If you have something substantive to add go ahead but don’t turn a thread where useful interesting insight is being offered into the classic internet reactionary fodder that scares timid middle managers and drives informed commentary by identifiable professionals away.
Originally posted by gold:
None of the above. Its all about intellectual property. One dynamic which slowed down progress was fear of sharing ideas or buying into a competitor’s extension, only to be sued later for infringing their IP. The new framework precludes public sharing of meeting notes and participation by non-members but facilitates sharing of ideas within the ARB, which is a Good Thing.
While I agree that sharing of ideas within the ARB is a good thing, I have a very hard time seeing the connection to getting sued and not sharing meeting notes.
Clarify the bylaws to make IP sharing mandatory and not optional, and continue letting people (i.e. us) know what’s going on. You don’t have to listen to anything we say, but sometimes the people on this forum actually have good ideas that might help finding problems that the ARB members (which are mainly people very close to the drivers) might not be aware of.
Closing the process for no good reason leaves a very bad taste. 
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. I cannot explain the rationale but I think its something like: if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine. If anyone can read the meeting notes, the members have no protection from those reading the notes. Within the ARB, everyone signs the same agreement so the protection is mutual. If this makes no sense to you, find an attorney who can explain it better.
If you really want to know what’s happening, apply to be a participant and sign the agreement. I’m sorry if you don’t agree with the decision but I don’t believe it was done “for no good reason”.
I understand the point that you’re making. Namely, that actual meeting notes are too sensitive of information to be released to the public, and it is that public release that keeps some developers from being willing to discuss propriatery information at ARB meetings.
In that case, something should still be done about fostering communication from inside the ARB to those wanting to know about OpenGL’s progress. Whether the ARB needs to issue press releases after a meeting to explain (in an unpropriatery way) upcoming features or such, or something else, the communication represented by meeting notes still needs to happen. It’s important for the health of the API.
If we can see that the ARB is hard at work on various features and such, then we know that OpenGL is still evolving and changing. If the only communication we get is the occasional extension specification, unexpected and out-of-the-blue, then we have no idea where these things come from or what order they are being worked on in. We can’t prepare for new features, and it makes it more difficult to get excited about the API when you don’t know what’s coming next.
Even Microsoft publically discloses what functionality one should expect with Direct3D releases before the actual release.
You make a valid point. It would be good for the ARB to clue people into their plans and progress. I’m not sure what that mechanism would be but I’ll certainly pass along your suggestion.
I also would appreciate some summary notes. They does not need to be accurete, just to know in what direction should I look foward.
As for the need to keep the old meeting notes closed, I really understand the need to.
Thank you.