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 23:15:45 GMT

On Nov 20, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Hi Geir,
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Next time you take a mail from a private list to a public one,  
>> please  ask permission.
>
> This is not public, but less private (committers vs members).

I actually did set this up as a public list.

>
> Still, I agree its generally poor form to do so, though in this  
> case no
> harm done as you've still kept the original quotes so there is  
> obviously
> nothing sensitive in it.

It's over.

>
>> That's not the issue.  It's not about overhead, but being sure  
>> that  people aren't independently claiming to represent the ASF.
>
> I don't think what Jason proposed is any different. Interested
> individual arrives on this list, everyone agrees/another person also
> volunteers to represent and we sort it out here in a semi-public way.
> End result: someone that the ASF chooses to have represent applies to
> the EG (as they have to do this anyway), and with an introductory mail
> from the current VP of JCP (ie, you) to the spec lead so that they  
> know
> that it is who the ASF wants.
>
> Doing the "placeholder representative" thing has been problematic on
> more than one occasion, and is not done globally now anyway. Unless we
> get blanket permission to have multiple participants, it will continue
> to be problematic, I think.

If there is someone that wants to do things, then there is no need  
for placeholder.  However, I'll certainly continue to do that if we  
don't have volunteer.  I do agree that I can do a better job in  
publicizing, and will.

>
>> Sometimes we're invited to be a part, and I say yes and be the   
>> placeholder to let things move forward, and when someone shows  
>> up,  that person becomes the rep.  When someone indicates they  
>> want to be  a  part of a JSR, I notify the JCP that the ASF will  
>> be on the EG,  and the person that indicated they wished to  
>> participate is the rep.   There's paperwork that people have to go  
>> through, and me being the  placeholder doesn't put any work on me,  
>> but just lets the JCP wheels  turn faster for us.
>
> Ok, this clearly isn't what happened with 277. If it is just a one off
> as you've suggested, then that's fine - I just want to make sure we're
> learning some lessons and are set up correctly so it doesn't happen  
> again.

277 was, IMO, a one off, one we won't repeat.

>
>>> C'mon Geir, that is not how it worked with JSR277. Brett was the  
>>> ideal
>>> candidate for the lead and it literally took 6 weeks for us to  
>>> get you
>>> to agree to let Brett have the official lead position. You were   
>>> seen as
>>> the lead so it was incredibly difficult for Brett to participate.  
>>> This
>>> is something that I would like to prevent in the future.
>> I think you are oversimplifying.
>> We were trying to get multiple ASF reps, and that took a while.   
>> Then  we flipped it over to Brett when that failed.  At no time  
>> did I ever  try to stop or inhibit Brett's participation.  And 277  
>> is an  interesting JSR because as far as I can tell, it is unique  
>> in that it  covers at least 3 projects here at the ASF- Maven,  
>> Felix and  Harmony.  Some might even argue that Maven is over- 
>> represented  because you are on the EG independently, and there  
>> are other projects  here that could be interested (now that  
>> Harmony has classlibrary code  activity, it is a candidate...)
>
> I think this is completely unfair. I am not on the group
> representing Maven, I'm representing the ASF. I follow the Felix and
> Harmony lists to ensure I know what is going on there.

Brett, I have no doubt that you represent the ASF, and not Maven, and  
currently there aren't any issues surrounding this.  Just know that  
the JCP is an *awfully* political place, so be prepared for crap,  
especially since both you and Jason are such significant members of  
the Maven project *and* significant employees of Mergere.  People  
always seem to jump to the worst of a set of conclusions when there's  
doubt, so be aware.

Also, it's _theoretically_ possible that we get into a situation  
where the technical interests of project A and project B are  
orthogonal (I'm not picking on any project here...).  It will be  
interesting to deal with that if it ever comes up.

>
> Doug Lea is also a listed participant in Harmony, and a member of  
> the EG. Richard Hall is a participant in Felix, and a member of the  
> EG.
>
> On the other hand, Jason and I have a lot of different views about  
> Maven
> itself and worked on different areas within it that are both relevant.
>
> I don't believe Maven is over-represented, and besides - that would be
> the spec lead's call and he certainly knew of both Jason and I's
> affiliation with the project.

if the spec lead came back and said that you couldn't be because of  
Maven, I'd fight that.  We get to choose who the spec lead is.  It's  
you :)

>
> I also don't think Jason was over simplifying. Quite frankly, I'm
> a bit annoyed at the way you are trying to represent it and would  
> like a
> chance to explain how I saw it play out.

Fair enough.

>
> Looking back now, I'd put to you that being interested in the JSR  
> yourself, you decided that you would be the representative of the  
> ASF. That may be your perogative as the VP of JCP - I'm not sure -  
> but I don't think it is how things should work. You yourself said  
> it is about "being sure that people aren't independently claiming  
> to represent the ASF". If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I certainly had an interest in participation, and still have that  
interest.  However, as VP of the JCP, I would never put myself first  
though, and I'm actually insulted that you would think that.

>
> To recap, I contacted you about this very early - before the thread  
> on Harmony (and this is before Felix/Oscar existed), and just after  
> I had posted to the Maven list about it. I suggested Apache should  
> be involved, because at that point, Apache was not listed as a  
> supporting member, and in particular as Maven had been mentioned in  
> the proposal and we had some interested folk. You told me that you  
> had applied to the EG. You also later replied to harmony-dev on the  
> topic:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/ 
> 200506.mbox/%3c2952AFF9-E64C-45DE-B175-E49056094E20@apache.org%3e
> saying "I'm on the EG".
>
> You did separately clarify in both instances that it was on behalf of
> the ASF, and on harmony-dev said that I had also expressed  
> interest, but I now think now that this gave away your intention.

What was my intention?

>
> When it originally came up, Jason took your advice and applied as  
> an individual. As far as I know, after that I'm the only person who  
> put their hand up to represent Apache on the EG other than  
> yourself. Yet a month later at the end of August (over two months  
> since the process started), I got no replies to my requests for  
> information about where we were at, the group had started with you  
> on it, and there was no way for anyone to participate.
>
> It took a week to find you on IRC and get any info on the progress
> (which was about 50 messages you were able to drop to me), and another
> week for you to attempt to get multiple representatives on the list
> (15 Sep). It took two weeks for me to catch up and I started  
> sending you
> messages to forward. It was only then that you pursued making me  
> rep, on the 1st of Oct. I was all set up by 4th of Oct.
>
> I was very patient at the time, and I understand you had more  
> important things to deal with in your personal life especially over  
> those last couple of weeks.
>
> However, I'm offended that you'd now say that you didn't inhibit my  
> participation, and blame Sun for things that took only the last 2  
> weeks of nearly 4 months of set up.

Let me put it this way - I had no intention of inhibiting your  
participation.  You can believe me or not.  I will certainly go back  
and review the data.   I don't recall this timing, because I know  
that I logged your NDA for participation in early september...  But I  
will go review.

>
> If I've missed anything, please let me know. I was obviously very
> frustrated by the way this panned out and felt like I was being  
> kept in the dark. If I wasn't so inclined to participate, I would  
> have given up long before I got a chance to. I would really like to  
> be set straight if that has clouded my view, but it concerns me  
> because it really doesn't fit with how Apache is supposed to operate.

I really am upset at the idea that you think that I was in some way  
personally motivated to do this to you or anyone - at least that is  
what I am reading into this.  The intention is to open things up and  
include people. I'm really sorry too that you decided to do this on  
an open and public list, but you certainly have your reasons, I suppose.

I will go review my emails.

>
> With all that said, I'm more than happy to put it behind us and get  
> working together on both this JSR and the JCP in general.

Yes, I think that would be far more productive.

>
> I'd really like to see the jsr lists set up for discussion, and the  
> policies and representatives posted on a website as discussed. I'll  
> again offer my help under your direction on this - I can put other  
> things aside if necessary.

Thanks - it should be no problem.   I am excited about this interest,  
and lookforward to moving forward and refining things.

>
> Let's also clarify the meaning of the two jcp lists and rename them  
> if necessary.
>
>> (aside : I'm interested in how Brett is treating the OSGi issue,  
>> as  it's a very interesting political and IP minefield - from what  
>> I  hear, the dance is in full swing, as expected...)
>
> Yep, I'm treating it as the EG has been asked to treat it. From  
> Apache's end, Felix is very new and has its work cut out  
> implementing the R4 spec
> itself (I'm not on the PPMC, so I don't know how they are dealing with
> that minefield, if at all, but certainly the incubator will sort that
> out). I doubt it is particularly relevant to Apache's representation
> other than to ensure that Felix is not disadvantaged in any way,  
> which I
> don't see happening. I'm sure that Richard would pick up on anything I
> might happen to miss in that regard.
>
>> I disagree, because there is no downside to the current process.    
>> With one exception, 277 has been the only JSR in which there's  
>> been  more than one person interested in being the rep, and what I  
>> was  trying for, if you remember, was multi-representation - to  
>> have more  people involved.  It didn't work, and it didn't work  
>> fast (as is the  way with Sun), and for now, Brett is the rep, and  
>> I'm sure he's doing  a fine job.
>
> I appreciate the vote of confidence. I thought you were still on the
> list, at least in ability to read the messages?

I have to check. My understanding is that I was cut off, and that it  
was all Brett, all the time :)

>
>> There are more groups at the ASF interested in 277, so it's  
>> probable  that the rep will rotate or be shared in the future, and  
>> I don't  think that we need or even can sometimes work all of that  
>> ahead of  time either.
>
> I agree on this. Though, so far, I haven't seen anyone with more  
> than a
> cursory interest.
>
> I'll also be the first to put my hand up if time constraints  don't
> permit me from working effectively on it.
>
> I do think any future rep would need to be getting involved in  
> advance, and able to at least read the list and discuss internally.  
> I'm happy to follow up with the lead as the current rep if you  
> think that is best. I think it might be better to see if we can do  
> something JCP wide, if at all possible. Again, just let me know how  
> I can help.

Oh, I think that it would be a horror show to switch reps :)  I'm  
really annoyed with Sun about not letting multiple people on, but  
this is the prerogative of the spec lead.

Also, I don't understand.  What do you mean "JCP wide"?

>
>> We get into the JSR as soon as we can w/ or w/o a person that's   
>> interested.  If someone comes along later, they get to do it  
>> unless  there's contention, and then I'd suggest those that are  
>> interested in  doing the work sort it out.
>
> I agree if its the case of someone coming along later that's  
> interested.
> When one or more people are interested from the start, then we should
> sort it out then.

Yep, although that one of my missions as EC rep is to help keep  
pounding wedges into the JCP to open it up.  I'd want to try to get  
those multiple people on the EG as our first try if we had that  
situation...

>
>> Remember, the ASF participating in the JCP is a interesting  
>> political  balance.  Our interests at the highest level is about  
>> continuing to  ensure transparency and openness are part of the  
>> JCP processes.  The  ASF as an organization doesn't really have a  
>> technical agenda, but so  far we've been able to have technical  
>> participation by domain experts  from projects without any  
>> problems.  That said, every now and then we  get an oddball.
>
> I think the situation of 277 will become less odd as we get more
> projects. A recent example - it looks imminent that Geronimo will  
> accept
> a number of incubated subprojects in the EE space. This will surely  
> mean
> more projects interested in related JSRs. I'm sure the same would  
> be the
> case with anything to do with Harmony as it spans the whole of  
> JavaSE, and will happen in and with other projects. I'd hate for  
> the same experience to befall anyone else.

The more the merrier.

>
>> The ASF can't be seen as a way to get people onto  JSRs by  
>> companies (to overload representation), and sometimes we may  have  
>> conflicting or multiple technical agendas as is possible with 277.
>
> I agree. Hopefully we are being crystal clear about how members of the
> ASF participate as individuals affiliated with the ASF. We love our  
> hats :)

It's actually very hard, and I've discovered that people tend to jump  
to the worst conclusions about people when there's even a possibility  
of multiple hats... ;)

>
>> In foundations/JCP and probably out of date.  That's something  
>> I'm  going to put on the upcoming JCP website, as there is no  
>> problem with  that being public information.  It's just there for  
>> historical reasons.
>
> Ok, looking forward to working on this with you all.
>
> Thanks,
> Brett

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message