www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: About joining JSR 279 and 280
Date Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:42:33 GMT

On Nov 8, 2005, at 3:05 PM, 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.
>> 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.

No problem there.  I've had the website planned, and this is a good  

>> 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.

I think that it's up to individuals who volunteer if they want to  
participate in more than one.  I see no problem with it.  If there is  
a dormant rep, then certainly a person who wants to be active should  
take over.  But without any other person interested, a dormant rep is  
fine.  It happens all the time in the JCP.

> 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.

We have to be careful there - I've thought about monthly "heartbeat"  
reports, but we have to be careful about information from expert  
groups getting to public board reports.  We have a weird situation  
because our interests in openness need to square with our  
responsibilities to keep EG confidential information confidential  
(this varies EG by EG...)

It's good to see some interest in this area.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message