dd {
margin-bottom: 0.5em }
-/* Uncomment (& remove this text!) to get bold-faced definition list terms
-dt {
- font-weight: bold }
-*/
-
div.abstract {
margin: 2em 5em }
<br />Adam Wolisz</td></tr>
<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Created:</th><td class="field-body">17-April-2006</td>
</tr>
-<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Version:</th><td class="field-body">1.1.2.3</td>
+<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Version:</th><td class="field-body">1.7</td>
</tr>
-<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Modified:</th><td class="field-body">2006-06-09</td>
+<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Modified:</th><td class="field-body">2007-06-21</td>
</tr>
<tr class="field"><th class="docinfo-name">Draft-Discuss:</th><td class="field-body">TinyOS Alliance <tinyos-alliance at mail.millennium.berkeley.edu></td>
</tr>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="overview" name="overview">2. Overview</a></h1>
<p>This memo defines a blueprint and conceptual foundation for an open
-alliance that fulfills the above charter.
-It defines the following ten aspects of the alliance:</p>
+alliance that fulfills the above charter. It defines the following ten
+aspects of the alliance:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul class="simple">
<li>Mission</li>
<li>OSGI - Service layer</li>
<li>FSF - Foundational software</li>
</ol>
-<p>We (the Alliance) draw most strongly upon the IETF, even though that
-organization was
+<p>Examining the structure and policies of these organizations helps
+determine what the Alliance can borrow from them, what it must
+do differently, and why. We (the Alliance) draw most strongly upon the
+IETF, even though that organization was
focused around creating and standardizing protocols, rather than
developing a code base. Its emphasis on rough consensus AND
running code placed issues akin to those we face near the fore. We
documents and protocols. We share an emphasis on broad participation
centered on the contributions of individual members.</p>
<p>We encourage industrial involvement, industrial development, and
-industrial support. The organization is welcoming to
-companies, but it keeps financial support and marketing
-activities (while both important) at arms length from the technical
-process. We share the concept that proper behavior of participants
-and member companies is most strongly shaped by code of ethics,
-captured in organization rules and social norms, rather than threats
-of legal reprocusions. The broader marketplace is a more effective
-enforcement body than any technical organization. Thus, we ask that
-participants declare relevant IP that they are aware of, rather than
-force a strict accounting of potentially relevant IP. We encourage
-the development of open solutions that implemented without need
-particular proprietary IP. In the IETF, this is addressed by the
-requirement of multiple interoperable implementations before
-standardization. If such implementations can be developed without
-legal issues, it is likely that other non-infringing implementations
-are possible. Like IETF, we seek a lean bureacracy adn mostly
-volunteer organization.</p>
+industrial support. The organization is welcoming to companies, but
+it keeps financial support and marketing activities (while both
+important) at arms length from the technical process. We share the
+concept that proper behavior of participants and member companies is
+most strongly shaped by code of ethics, captured in organization rules
+and social norms, rather than threats of legal repercussions. The
+broader marketplace is a more effective enforcement body than any
+technical organization. Thus, we ask that participants declare
+relevant intellectual proprt (IP) that they are aware of, rather than
+force a strict
+accounting of potentially relevant IP. We encourage the development
+of open solutions that are implemented without the need for particular
+proprietary IP. In the IETF, this is addressed by the requirement of
+multiple interoperable implementations before standardization. If
+such implementations can be developed without legal issues, it is
+likely that other non-infringing implementations are possible. Like
+IETF, we seek a lean bureacracy and mostly volunteer organization.</p>
<p>From OSDL, we share the goal of developing a stable, high quality
version of an open source system. This suggests that the alliance
-have strong role in developing test suites and broadly accessible
+have a strong role in developing test suites and broadly accessible
testbeds, as well as structures for sharing development resources.
However, we avoid the OSDL structure of the scale of monetary
contributions dictating technical oversite. We are not constrained by
consortium that there can be a lot of individual innovation,
especially in areas of tools, devices, and new platforms. We also
seek to retain the notion that credit should be given to authors. In
-Apache the technical merit associated with the brand is exchanged to
-giving the copyright to the Apache organization. For a broad alliance
+Apache, giving the copyright to the Apache organization exchanges the
+value of the brand for technical contributions. For a broad alliance
representing many universities and large companies, such a copyright
-scheme is likely to be an untennable barrier. Instead, we seek to
+scheme is likely to be an untenable barrier. Instead, we seek to
provide a simple source license regime with technical tools for giving
credit and strong social pressure to comply.</p>
<p>From Zigbee, we share the goal of providing marketing support for the
-accomplishments of the alliance and that we should see to define
+accomplishments of the alliance and that we should seek to define
standardized services, not just protocols. We recognize that the
-alliance and serve a useful function in being a point of allocation
-for various namespaces, but that this important function should not be
-a tool for extracting financial contributions. We see the value of an
+alliance serves a useful function in being a point of allocation for
+various namespaces, but that this important function should not be a
+tool for extracting financial contributions. We see the value of an
IP pool to give confidence that the standard can be adopted without
becoming entrapped later by IP terms, however, we also see that such a
pool presents a very significant barrier. Moreover, it does not
other members of the alliance. It also does not constrain non-members
from obtaining blocking IP. It does discourage contributions that
might pull IP into the pool. We prefer a process of declaration and
-multiple implementation.</p>
+multiple implementation. Section 7 goes deeper into how the Alliance
+manages the issues and complexities of IP in an open organization.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="mission" name="mission">3. Mission</a></h1>
<p>The Alliance has a technical advisory function: guide the evolution of
the TinyOS architecture, formulate and track progress of working
groups, and provide an open and impartial process for technical
-documentation. It also has an organizational advisory function: manage
-industry
-interaction, legal and IP issues, evolution of the organization
-itself, membership issues and so on.</p>
+documentation. It also has an organizational advisory function:
+manage industry interaction, legal and IP issues, evolution of the
+organization itself, membership issues and so on.</p>
<p>We follow an approach that starts small and grows the structure as
needed. The focus should be on the working groups. Working groups are
not limited to technical functions; they can be formed to promote
process, managing WG creation/extinction, arbitrating between WGs, and
supervising activities to resolve conflicting directions and moving
the process towards overall architectural coherence.</p>
-<p>The SC is also responsible for reviewing and approving all TEPs. WGs
+<p>The SC is also responsible for reviewing and approving all TinyOS
+Enhancement Proposals (TEPs) that working groups generate. WGs
submit TEPs to the SC for review. The SC should appoint one
contributing Alliance member not affiliated with the corresponding WG
to review the TEP. This reviewer, who may or may not be a member of
procedural elements of the Alliance. This includes election
procedures, membership criteria, selection of venues, oversight of
access to code repositories and Alliance web sites, and regular
-Alliance meetings.</p>
+Alliance meetings that occur at least once a year.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h2><a id="working-groups" name="working-groups">4.2 Working Groups</a></h2>
all respects: legal, financial, and organizational. As with IETF and
Apache, we want to shape the organization as a meritocracy that
encourages, promotes, and credits the contributions of its members.
-Companies have essential role, but merit, not finances should
+Companies have an essential role, but merit, not finances should
dictate direction. Membership and influence should recognize the
importance of adopters, not just developers.</p>
<p>The fundamental membership is individual, as individuals create work products,
</dd>
</dl>
</li>
-<li><p class="first">Contributing Member: Individual who aditionally joins working groups,
+<li><p class="first">Contributing Member: Individual who additionally joins working groups,
attends meetings, or contributes code or other assets to the
Alliance. Contributing members are elected to various posts and
have voting rights.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no individual membership fee, but members will be responsible for
nominal registration fees at Alliance meetings.</p>
-<p>Corporations and organizational have institutional membership, which reflects
-their degree of effort.</p>
+<p>Corporations and organizations have institutional membership, which
+reflects their degree of effort.</p>
<blockquote>
<ul class="simple">
-<li>Institutional Member: Corporation or institutional organization
+<li>Institutional Member: A corporation or organization
that joins the Alliance, agrees to appear on the Alliance
web site and documents, and pays a nominal administrative fee.
(Min. Annual $500 for small companies and non-profits, $1000 for larger)</li>
alliance in facilitating a healthy academic and industrial, research
and production ecosystem around embedded network technology.</p>
<p>The organization will be able to accept direct financial and
-intellectual property contributions. The IP policy should encourage
+intellectual property contributions. The IP policy, described
+in Section 7, should encourage
corporate participation while preserving focus on soundness, merit,
and consensus building. Ultimately, we seek to promote a meritocracy
that recognizess the contributions of the individuals, whether they
be members of corporations, academic institutions, govermental
-institutions, or unaffiliated. We will provide a fee structure that encourages
-the participation of small companies and start-ups.</p>
+institutions, or unaffiliated.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="id1" name="id1">6. Working Groups</a></h1>
-<p>There will be two forms of working groups. LONG-STANDING
-groups are chartered to develop important areas or subsystems. For
-example, we expect longstanding groups on
-routing, management, platforms, testing, programming tools, and
-education. SHORT-TERM groups have a fixed mandate to tackle a
-particular topic. For example, there may be groups to develop a
-particular protocol, establish a policy or licensing format, or
-address a particular application capability.</p>
+<p>There will be two forms of working groups. LONG-STANDING groups are
+chartered to develop important areas or subsystems. For example, we
+expect longstanding groups on routing, management, platforms, testing,
+programming tools, and education. SHORT-TERM groups have a fixed
+mandate to tackle a particular topic. For example, there may be
+groups to develop a particular protocol, establish a policy or
+licensing format, or address a particular application capability.</p>
<p>There will be two means of Working Group formation: grass roots and
charter. Grass roots groups are formed by individuals or groups
who have a preliminary version of something important and want to make
marketing goals, as well as technical goals.</p>
<p>The typical output of a working group is technical documentation AND
working code, including interface definitions and standard proposals.
+While this is the typical output, working groups are not constrained
+to this model, and can have a variety of purposes and work products.
We seek to promote the development of standardized interfaces,
protocols, services, and tools with high quality, open reference
implementations of each. We seek to have these standards be
implementable without relying on particular proprietary intellectual
property. We are not interested in discouraging development of
-implementations that have excel in various ways through proprietary
+implementations that have excelled in various ways through proprietary
IP, but standards should not require the use of such IP and should
-allow for multiple, interoperable implementations.
-The Steering committee will be engaged in ratification of standards.</p>
+allow for multiple, interoperable implementations. The Steering
+committee will be engaged in ratification of standards by actively
+participating in the community review process and document evolution.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="intellectual-property" name="intellectual-property">7. Intellectual Property</a></h1>
<p>In general we want to promote the development, adoption and use of
open technology. We want to avoid having the advancement of embedded
networks getting trapped into proprietary IP. Accordingly, our IP
-policy builds heavily on the IETF mode. We also want to avoid a high
+policy builds heavily on the IETF model. We also want to avoid a high
barrier to participation. Thus, we want to avoid demanding membership
requirements that require extensive legal analysis and assessing deep
strategic analysis before joining. In particular, IP pooling or broad
the proposal can only reasonably be implemented using such IP.
Members recognize that in making proposals, they are required by
Alliance rules to disclose what IP they know to be relevant. In the
-rare cases where working group determine that IP dependent proposals
-are sufficiently critical that they be pursued, such IP must be
-available on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms for the
+rare cases where a working group determines that IP dependent
+proposals are sufficiently critical that they be pursued, such IP must
+be available on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms for the
Steering Committee to be able to approve the action.</p>
<p>Of course, Intellectual Property in the TinyOS alliance is closely
-tied to source licensing terms, as dicussed in greater detail in that
-section. As part of Alliance rules, members agree to only check in
+tied to source licensing terms, as dicussed in greater detail in Section 8.
+As part of Alliance rules, members agree to only contribute
code that conforms to Alliance source license policy. As part of
keeping barriers to participation low, GPL and code based on
potentially viral licensing terms must be carefully compartmentalized,
tensions and trade-offs in formulating the source license.</p>
<p>We want to give credit where credit is due. Fundamentally, the
community moves forward by contributing valuable technology and
-standing open each other's shoulders, not on their feet. Credit and
+standing upon each other's shoulders, not on their feet. Credit and
respect drive a virtuous cycle of technical advance. We do have
several examples where companies, or even resarch institutions, have
gained substantial benefit from the work of others while presenting it
as their own. This concern is partially addressed by GPL, where if
-you build upon the work of others you are oblicated to put it back in
-the open. Apache addresses this issue by requiring acreditation of
+you build upon the work of others you are obliged to put it back in
+the open. Apache addresses this issue by requiring accreditation of
the Apache foundation. However, this is connected with a stiff
membership requirement of signing the copyright to Apache.
-Participants make that sacrafice when they view the brand appeal
+Participants make that sacrifice when they view the brand appeal
associated with the Apache meritocracy as of sufficient value to
-warrant the arrangement. Apache is also a losely affiliated
-consortium of realtively localized projects, typically in very well
+warrant the arrangement. Apache is also a loosely affiliated
+consortium of relatively localized projects, typically in very well
established technical areas. Our situation is different because we
have many contributors to a cohesive whole and many of these
contributors are at leading research institutions where copyright must
<p>We recognize that the TinyOS "brand" is of value and will be
increasingly so as the Alliance becomes more formal. We do not want
it tainted with its use as a marketing tool on inferior technology.
-Thus, we want to connect the use of the term with membership,
+Thus, we want to connect the use of the TinyOS term with membership,
contribution, and conformance to Alliance rules and guidelines.</p>
<p>We have the additional wrinkle that we are dealing primarily with
embedded technology, which may have no visible user interface. And,
however, want to have as few distinct licenses with a little variation
as possible. Fortunately, we are seeing convergence in licenses,
after several years of proliferation.</p>
-<p>To address these matters, the Alliance will have a
-preferred source license based on the BSD framework and a
-small set of accepted licenses, some of which have been gradfathered
-in with the existing code base.
-Contributions can be made using one of those accepted licenses, with
-the member organization name changed appropriately. Organizations can
-submit additional proposed licenses to the Steering Committee.</p>
+<p>To address these matters, the Alliance has a preferred source license
+based on the BSD framework, (the "new" BSD license approved by the
+Open Source Initiative <a class="citation-reference" href="#bsd" id="id2" name="id2">[BSD]</a> ) and a small set of accepted licenses, some
+of which have been gradfathered in with the existing code
+base. Contributions can be made using one of those accepted licenses,
+with the member organization name changed appropriately.
+Organizations can submit additional proposed licenses to the Steering
+Committee. In order to avoid the debate of what constitutes "open
+source," the Steering Committee will generally only consider
+licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for inclusion in
+the core. However, being an
+OSI-approved license is not a sufficient condition for approval
+within the Alliance. If a contributor
+wishes to use a completely new license, it can submit the license to
+the OSI first.</p>
<p>We will not require that the Alliance hold copyright of submitted
source code, but that it conform to Alliance guidelines. These
include guidelines for adding copyrights to existing sources.</p>
<p>We will utilize the available development tools to facilitate the
-generation of list of contributors associated with any particular
+generation of a list of contributors associated with any particular
instantiation of TinyOS components into an overall system,
application, or distribution. We will provide tools for registering
contributors, copyrights, and applicable source licenses on line, for
practical advantage. Instead, the Alliance will utilize cultural
norms and reputation as mechanisms for enforcing proper creditation.
We will develop tools that make compliance relatively easy, reward
-those that do so, and provide a complaint mechanism to identify misuse.</p>
-<p>In taking this approach, we focus on needs of reference implementation
-of standardized interfaces and protocols. Alliance is not the only
-vehicle for producing a hardened, tested, certified code base.
+those that do so, and provide a complaint mechanism to identify
+misuse.</p>
+<p>In taking this approach, we focus on needs of reference mplementations
+of standardized interfaces and protocols. The Alliance is not the
+only vehicle for producing a hardened, tested, certified code base.
To do so would require the Alliance host a large technical staff, as
-OSDL does.
-Comapanies may do so, or produce implementations with enhanced
-performance, reliability, or efficiency using their own proprietary
-technology. The Alliance encourages such innovation while promoting
-standardized interfaces that allows such technology to interoperate.</p>
+OSDL does. Comapanies may do so, or produce implementations with
+enhanced performance, reliability, or efficiency using their own
+proprietary technology. The Alliance encourages such innovation while
+promoting standardized interfaces that allow such technology to
+interoperate.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="funding" name="funding">9. Funding</a></h1>
-<p>As with the IETF, individuals are responsible for their own costs,
-which primarily involve meetings, travel, and generation of work
-products. Membership participation will involve attendance at
-Alliance meetings. Registration fees will be charged to cover costs
-associated with adminstration of the meetings.</p>
-<p>Companies and institutions are encouraged to contribute financial and
-in-kind support. It will be essential that companies provide initial
-funding to create the legal structure and to establish basic IT
-capabilities to host the web site and working groups.</p>
<p>Initially, we expect that there are no full time employees in the
Alliance and that funding needs are limited to such items as lawyer's
fees, web site costs, and insurance. If the Alliance eventually
requires full time support personnel, the funding structure will have
to be re-visited.</p>
+<p>As with the IETF, individuals are responsible for their own costs,
+which primarily involve meetings, travel, and generation of work
+products. The Alliance is predominantly a volunteer organization.
+Membership participation will involve attendance at Alliance meetings.
+Registration fees will be charged to cover costs associated with
+adminstration of the meetings.</p>
<p>To maintain the focus on technical excellence and meritocracy, we want
to avoid the heavy-handed quid-pro-quo seen in many industrial
consortiums where funding determines influence. The best use of funds
and the best form of influence is direct contribution to the work
-products of the Alliance. We will permit targeted contributions
-toward specific working groups or technical capabilities.</p>
-<p>We seek to keep overall structure lean, mostly volunteer.
-Focus on desired impact and recognition, rather than control.</p>
-<p>Institutional members
-will pay an annual membership fee. In some cases, a
-contributing corporate member may provide in-kind services
-such as lawyers' time used to
-draw up or comment on by-laws.
-Targeted contributions will be
-solicited and encouraged. In this case the donator need not
-become a contributing corporate member, e.g., in those cases
-where such a membership may be prohibited or unwanted.
-The costs of meetings, such as the TinyOS
-technology exchange, will be covered through registration fees.</p>
-<p>Individuals are responsible
-for their own costs such as
-for travel, meeting costs, or costs for contributing
-software or documentation to the Alliance. The Alliance
-is primarily a volunteer organization.</p>
+products of the Alliance. To keep the structure of the Alliance and
+its operations minimalist and lean, membership focuses on desired
+impact and recognition, rather than control. We want the best way to
+influence the direction of the Alliance to be to contribute technical
+work and demonstrate leadership, rather than try to control what
+individuals can or cannot contribute.</p>
+<p>Companies and institutions are encouraged to contribute financial and
+in-kind support. It will be essential that companies provide initial
+funding to create the legal structure and to establish basic IT
+capabilities to host the web site and working groups. Institutional
+members will pay an annual membership fee. In some cases, a
+contributing corporate member may provide in-kind services such as
+lawyers' time used to draw up or comment on by-laws. Targeted
+contributions will be solicited and encouraged. In this case the
+donator need not become a contributing corporate member, e.g., in
+those cases where such a membership may be prohibited or unwanted.
+The costs of meetings, such as the TinyOS technology exchange, will be
+covered through registration fees and not by institutional membership
+fees.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="work-products" name="work-products">10. Work Products</a></h1>
-<p>Code base
-Stable, robust core release
-Rapidly evolving, innovative extensions
-Reference Implementations
-Tools
-Data
-Documentation
-Standard proposals
-Marketing and Promotion
-Testing and Compliance
-Assessments
-Applications and uses of technology
-Educational Materials</p>
+<p>The broad mission of the Alliance calls for a broad range of
+work products.</p>
+<p>Foremost among these are a set of TEPs documenting systems and
+protocols as well as TEPs that provide guidance and knowledge to the
+community. Technical documentation will have robust and open reference
+implementations for the community to use, refine, improve, and
+discuss. These reference implementations will not preclude
+alternative, compatibile implementations which may have additional
+features or optimizations. The Alliance Working Groups will
+periodically produce periodic releases of these reference
+implementations for the community to use and improve.</p>
+<p>The Alliance will support community contributions of innovative
+extensions and systems by providing a CVS repository to store them.
+In order to keep these contributions organized for users, the Steering
+Committee may nominate one or more people to caretake the repository
+by setting minimal guidelines for the use of the directory structure
+and migrating code as it joins the core or falls into disuse.</p>
+<p>To make these technological resources more accessible and useful
+to a broad embedded networks community, the Alliance will be
+dedicated to providing a set of educational materials. This
+includes introductory tutorials, documentation of core systems,
+simple and complex example applications, and user guides.</p>
+<p>In addition to educational sample applications, whose purpose
+is to teach new developers about the internals and workings of
+the technology, the Alliance will develop and make available
+several end-user applications and tools. The goal is to improve
+the accessibility of the technology to end-users while
+demonstrating its effectiveness. Historical examples of such applications
+include Surge and TinyDB. An important part of this effort is
+good documentation for users who are not expert programmers, as well
+as tools and graphical environments.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
<h1><a id="conclusions" name="conclusions">11. Conclusions</a></h1>
-<p>The time has come to create an organizational structure to allow the effort to grow
-Beyond the Berkeley + Others
-It is a balancing act
-Stability vs Innovation
-Broad Participation vs Strong Requirements
-Uniform Licensing vs Institutional Differences
-Goal is to help to community to work together
-Not a forum for maneuvering and intrigue
-Focus on consensus building and technical soundness
-Minimal mechanism to resolve rare differences
-Focus on working groups and individual contributions
-with architectural and organization oversight
-Be pragmatic on participation
-Don\92t have to make deep commitments to participate
-Can\92t expect broad guarantees in return</p>
+<p>By focusing on consensus building and technical excellence, the
+Alliance seeks to avoid being a forum for political and economic
+positioning. It will achieve this by focusing on working groups and
+the contributions of individuals, while not taking strong positions on
+the benefits or drawbacks of different approaches. The diverse
+requiremements of sensornet applications mean that having a suite of
+solutions, rather than a single one, is often not only desirable but
+essential.</p>
+<p>Over the past five years, low-power embedded sensor networks have
+grown from research prototypes to working systems that are being
+actively deployed. Furthermore, there is a vibrant research community
+that actively works to deploy these systems and collaborate with
+industry, making advances quickly accessible and usable. A great
+catalyst to this growth has been the presence of a large community
+around a shared, free code base.</p>
+<p>The time has come to create an organizational structure to
+allow the effort to grow further. As sensornets become more widespread,
+contributions and advancements will be from an increasingly broad
+demographic of users, and bringing them all together will speed
+progress and improve the potential benefit these systems can bring
+to society. This focus on bringing disparate groups together lies
+at the heart of the Alliance. Rather than depend on strong requirements,
+it depends on broad collaboration and participation, placing a minimalist
+set of expectations that will encourage the exchange of ideas and
+technology.</p>
</div>
<div class="section">
-<h1><a id="author-s-address" name="author-s-address">12. Author's Address</a></h1>
+<h1><a id="authors-address" name="authors-address">12. Authors' Address</a></h1>
<div class="line-block">
-<div class="line">Philippe Bonnet <<a class="reference" href="mailto:bonnet.p@gmail.com">bonnet.p@gmail.com</a>></div>
-<div class="line">David Culler <<a class="reference" href="mailto:culler@cs.berkeley.edu">culler@cs.berkeley.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Deborah Estrin <<a class="reference" href="mailto:destrin@cs.ucla.edu">destrin@cs.ucla.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Ramesh Govindan <<a class="reference" href="mailto:ramesh@usc.edu">ramesh@usc.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Mike Horton <<a class="reference" href="mailto:mhorton@xbow.com">mhorton@xbow.com</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Jeonghoon Kang <<a class="reference" href="mailto:budge@keti.re.kr">budge@keti.re.kr</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Philip Levis <<a class="reference" href="mailto:pal@cs.stanford.edu">pal@cs.stanford.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Lama Nachman <<a class="reference" href="mailto:lama.nachman@intel.com">lama.nachman@intel.com</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Jack Stankovic <<a class="reference" href="mailto:stankovic@cs.virginia.edu">stankovic@cs.virginia.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Rob Szewczyk <<a class="reference" href="mailto:rob@moteiv.com">rob@moteiv.com</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Matt Welsh <<a class="reference" href="mailto:mdw@cs.harvard.edu">mdw@cs.harvard.edu</a>></div>
-<div class="line">Adam Wolisz <<a class="reference" href="mailto:awo@ieee.org">awo@ieee.org</a>></div>
+<div class="line">Philippe Bonnet <bonnet.p at gmail.com></div>
+<div class="line">David Culler <dculler at archrock.com></div>
+<div class="line">Deborah Estrin <destrin at cs.ucla.edu></div>
+<div class="line">Ramesh Govindan <ramesh at usc.edu></div>
+<div class="line">Mike Horton <mhorton at xbow.com></div>
+<div class="line">Jeonghoon Kang <budge at keti.re.kr></div>
+<div class="line">Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu></div>
+<div class="line">Lama Nachman <lama.nachman at intel.com></div>
+<div class="line">Jack Stankovic <stankovic at cs.virginia.edu></div>
+<div class="line">Rob Szewczyk <rob at moteiv.com></div>
+<div class="line">Matt Welsh <mdw at cs.harvard.edu></div>
+<div class="line">Adam Wolisz <awo at ieee.org></div>
</div>
-<div class="line-block">
-<div class="line">David Culler <dculler at archrock.com>,</div>
</div>
+<div class="section">
+<h1><a id="citations" name="citations">13. Citations</a></h1>
+<table class="docutils citation" frame="void" id="bsd" rules="none">
+<colgroup><col class="label" /><col /></colgroup>
+<tbody valign="top">
+<tr><td class="label"><a class="fn-backref" href="#id2" name="bsd">[BSD]</a></td><td><a class="reference" href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php">http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php</a></td></tr>
+</tbody>
+</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
projects / tinyos-2.x.git / blobdiff