www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: About joining JSR 279 and 280
Date Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:19:46 GMT
Sorry for the late reply.

+1 from me too, with some comments.

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> +1 I would have thought this is how things already worked.  It seems  
> like the Apache Way... of course I have a few tweaks :)
> 
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> 
>> 1) No JSR should be applied for until it has been decided on this list
>> who is going to represent Apache.

... unless the deadline is coming up and for some reason a decision 
hasn't been reached.

I do think its important that the right person gets on there first, as 
we've seen in more than one case it takes some time to make a switch (it 
is possible, but it takes some time). It took about two months until I 
was able to participate effectively.

>>
>> 2) When the person is selected via the standard voting practices then
>> that person contacts the spec lead. Again if this person doesn't have
>> the motivation to contact the spec lead and get things moving then we
>> should not participate.
> 
> 
> I would suggest that this list be copied on all "administrative"  
> communication with the spec leads or the EC.  That way we have an  
> official record of what is going on.  Further, if we don't already  have 
> one, I would like to have a JCP website at Apache that details  our 
> policies joining a EG and lists the people representing Apache on  the 
> various specs.  Sometimes, I want to ask for a feature to be  added to a 
> spec, but don't know who is representing Apache.
> 

The list of reps is in the foundation repository under JCP/jsr-reps.txt 
(members only). It looks out of date - I'm pretty sure some are missing.

I'm not sure if its necessary to keep that there - it could be in the 
committers only repository or in the asylum when it is set up (in fact, 
it probably can be in public - there's nothing secret in there, though 
there isn't any benefit to this).

I agree with Dain on documenting the people on the JSRs and policies 
around them. I think it would be great to better promote the JCP within 
Apache - for instance, this list has about 12 subscribers. There are a 
lot more on the members list. Sorting out who has access to what and 
making sure that people can get involved should be a priority.

>> 3) I think it would be fair say that one individual cannot possibly
>> handle more then one JSR. I can barely keep up with JSR 277.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure on this one.  Some specs don't have much volume and  others 
> do.  This is kind of like saying you can be heavily involved  in more 
> than one Apache project.  Of course, I don't want an Apache  rep that is 
> so overwhelmed that they aren't effectively representing  us.  Maybe we 
> should ask the rep to create a quarterly report, which  we can attache 
> to the board report for this group.  If they can't  create a paragraph, 
> it is a good sign they aren't involved.

Agreed. This shouldn't be a restriction, but by the same token if there 
are other equally qualified people then sharing the load is good.

So how do we take this forward?

Cheers,
Brett

Mime
View raw message