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: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org
Date Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:06:18 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I don't want to stall it either.
Ok, I'll get stuck into that mail now and if it looks like it will take
some time, we create the list regardless. Is that a reasonable compromise?
>> - it's unlikely to be blanket discussion. It may actually be more
>> productive to just discuss under NDA than to have to dodge around topics
>> or vet everything I share - and it's important that we continue to
>> respect the wishes of the EG whatever they might be.
> I thought we'd subscribe the EG list to our list.
By that you mean our list receives the EG mail but not vice-versa I
assume. I'm all for that if the EG is and the interest group is. It's
potentially a flood of mail they don't want to deal with and might find
confusing as to what they are replying to and discussing internally.
Maybe it would be better to work to make it easy to add additional
people to the "read only" list on the EG as I was initially, and use the
internal list for discussion. Those that just want to hear the
highlights and provide feedback can also do that.
>> - whatever we do here may need to be done again for other groups. Will
>> they all have to wait, or will we end up creating this group anyway?
> I don't understand the question there.
Whatever arrangement I can come to with Stanley regarding JSR277 will
have to be replicated for other JSRs over time. While the precedent
might help, we may find ourselves needing to create an NDA'd group
anyway, so I'm not sure its harmful to do now.
>> In regards to what I am suggesting to Stanley, we intend to set up:
>> - a list for committers only
>> - no public archive, but privately archived for committers
>> - will not require a signed NDA as this often is difficult for them to
>> do with their own employment arrangements
> So far, we've never had that problem with an employer.
It's what's currently delaying Steve from getting involved, right? I'm
not saying anyone has a problem with it, but that its a hurdle. I'll
just simplify this to say its a barrier to entry.
>> - will be under a standing agreement with the committers that it should
>> remain ASF-confidential
> I don't know what that really means if you don't have an NDA.  If a
> person can't agree to a written NDA, how can they agree to a verbal or
> implied one?
I'm just wanting to assure him that the discussion will remain
confidential. There is a strong indication at this point that it is
desired to be that way. The barrier to agreeing to the NDA is not so
much that they won't discuss but that they have to sign the piece of paper.
>> - will still be presented to the EG as one voice from the ASF, though
>> the current rep
> Definitely.  Our list would be internal only - you would be the person
> to talk on the list on behalf of that group.
> The only other solution I can think of to have everyone who wants to
> do this join the JCP.  I *think* that they would then be covered, and
> then Stanley wouldn't have a problem with sharing the info, or shouldn't.
That seems much more arduous than signing an NDA.
> However, that doesn't get us anywhere closer to the goal of opening up
> EG discussions...
I think you need to restate your goal into something more tangible. Try
not to use the word "open" or any derivative of it :)

I'm honestly very confused by what you are trying to achieve here. On
the participation side, everything is "open". Anyone can contribute
through the EG rep. I'd even take feedback from people outside the ASF,
and as long as it sites well with our understanding, would be happy to
express it. The limitation to this is that it is not very effective
without the ability to see what is going on inside the group.

As far as what others can know, are you trying to open it up to all ASF
committers without restriction, or do you want the public at large to
have visibility of the discussion inside the group? I thought it was the
first and I think that's a reasonable request. The latter is an
admirable goal, but not something I think we can leap to right now.

I'll wait for your clarification before initiating this other mail so
that we are on the same page.

- Brett

View raw message