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 It looks out of date - I'm pretty sure some are missing.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?


View raw message