Well the damage (Mark caused by this) is done, neither now nor next week it can be fully undone;-O

However by following up on a constructive discussion whenever everyone is are ready after the weekend the cause of a configuration standard could probably be best served.

If there's a Hangout etc. at a decent time happy to also join that.



On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

Let's keep Alan's proposed moratorium.


On Jul 15, 2016 13:56, "Werner Keil" <werner.keil@gmail.com> wrote:

> Former DeviceMap comitter and PMC chair Reza was also the original author
> of many parts of what he moved to GitHub in a fork, but folks like Bertrand
> who's also on the Apache board were pretty clear, he must not continue to
> develop that under the "Apache" brand or "org.apache.*" as you did in your
> private fork of "something".
> I am not even bothering to discuss the "javax.*" mistake further, it's just
> wrong at the wrong time in the wrong place.
> The only good thing is a discussion in the Tamaya list about design
> aspects.
> This could have happened in a much more sensitive and more appropriate way.
> People everywhere not just at Oracle look with great scrutiny at Open
> Source and as we see from the Java EE 8 discussion and all the resources at
> Oracle and elsewhere drawn from Open Source into commercial, Closes Source
> proprietary solutions instead of open standards.
> However, even if Oracle was to stop working on Java EE you must not simply
> go and say "Oh, those lazy bones, I'm going to create my own Java standard
> instead".
> Or what next, "Sorry W3C, you take way too long with HTML5, I now create
> HTML6 in my own GitHub repository and everyone will use it"?;-D
> You may have done this with the bet intentions, but did great damage to the
> impression people have of Open Source, Open Java, the JCP and also Apache.
> It helped only those who claim "those Open Source guys are a bunch of
> anarchists who can't make up their minds and don't produce anything of
> value".
> Not sure, if you really intended to do that, but that's how it went, so
> please try to be a little more thoughtful and ask people who are involved
> in the process (PMO or EC if you plan to file a JSR;-) next time.
> Cheers,
> Werner
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Am 15.07.2016 um 09:31 schrieb Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Tamaya will know best, if it tolerates a fork of
> > > Geronimo in the way Mark created it.
> >
> >
> > Wow! Dude, you got something horribly wrong.
> >
> > That stuff is in no way a fork of Tamaya. It’s just the core bits I wrote
> > in DeltaSpike configuration.
> > In DeltaSpike this exists since 2011.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/deltaspike/commit/fb0131106481f0b9a8fdc13b9879a5482219c736
> >
> > And the very core (various config sources ordered by a config_ordinal)
> > even dates back to my work in OpenWebBeans as of 2010
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/commit/eccc84cbba8d2e823f4aa0ab626e1d7560f78486
> > Gerhard Petracek then also helped a great deal later in CODI and in
> > DeltaSpike. But that’s pretty much it.
> >
> > So who forked whom? …
> > To get this straight: I am the original author of this algorithm and API
> > design.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub