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: creating jsr277-discuss@apache.org
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:25:57 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> There's the rub.  What does it mean "discussions muct remain confidential"?

Section 9 of the JSPA that says that things marked confidential must be
kept so up until made available for public review or 3 years passes. The
EG has been requested that all phone calls, mailing list traffic and the
wiki be kept confidential.

I'm certain given the emphasis on that that a request to make everything
public would have been declined, however I've led the discussion in that
direction for the future. I asked whether I could send any information
about progress to the board for a report that would be opened to the
public after a number of months, and was told that I would have to
request that it not be made public if sent to the board.

As I said in the last email, its entirely unclear to me what your goal
is. It would be helpful if you could go back and clarify that. But
removing the confidentiality is not something that is going to happen

Are there any JSRs I can refer to that have already done this? I know
JDO2 does their TCK and RI development in the open, but AFAICT the EG
discussions are not.

> I'm assuming that Stanley assumed you were asking if NDA's between Sun
> and our individuals was required (the answer is 'no', of course, as
> they're participating as ASF, not individuals), 

No, he understood what I meant.

> but by stating that we
> keep to the conditions of the JSPA and the conditions remain
> confidential, the onus is back on us, and thus I'd argue we didn't get
> very far as we are extending obligations of the JSPA to those
> participating in our name.

That's exactly what he said. I never would have assumed you wanted me to
try and get the JSR to operate outside the conditions of the JSPA as
that most certainly would have been shot down in flames.

> This isn't an issue for the board.

I would expect that your next point would be. That's really what I
meant. I'm not asking we draw them into any discussion (they've got
plenty else to deal with!) but rather approve anything that comes out of
this - or do you have authority to do so as an officer? Shouldn't doing
so still be recorded in the minutes of a board meeting?

> I'll find out if there is
> a way we can setup the list w/o NDAs through some other mechanism with
> which we (the ASF) can reasonably demonstrate that we upheld the terms
> of the JSPA w/o some confidentiality agreement/awareness with the
> participants that we are choosing to include.

Thanks. Can you give some thoughts on what this might be, or how you are
going about this? If its another signed piece of paper that's not an
NDA, or something else that still requires special access restrictions
on our servers then we're really back in the same boat as I think its
the paperwork and the infra work that were considered the barriers to
entry here.

Is accepting membership sufficient? I don't see anything in the bylaws
that indicate it is, but just a thought of at least one group that might
be able to get easier access.

> In order to not hold this up any further while we figure it out, I'll
> set things up 


> so that the only thing moderated is subscription, which
> I'll do and ensure that each sub has the NDA on file (for now).  

I can do that as well. We can just ask that they use their Apache
address (or alias listed in committers) to subscribe.

That doesn't really answer what we do with the archives which would
still be open to all committers or at least members.

> Given
> the small group subscribing, do you see any need to moderate the
> postings themselves?

There's 3 choices:
(a) moderate postings. People can post if not subscribed which might be
(b) bounce messages not from subscribed members.
(c) open list. spam sink.

(a) or (b) are fine with me. I'd suspect anyone that hasn't signed an
NDA can send anything via jcp-open@ so (a) would only be helpful for
people sending from the wrong address, which isn't a big deal.

- Brett

View raw message