Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 4960 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2006 11:56:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2006 11:56:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 90358 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2006 11:56:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 90290 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2006 11:56:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list jcp-open@apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for jcp-open@apache.org Received: (qmail 18481 invoked by uid 99); 2 Mar 2006 00:59:31 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:59:04 -0500 (EST) From: Henri Yandell X-X-Sender: hen@kongo To: jcp-open@apache.org Subject: Re: JSR 291 : OSGi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <440499F0.60901@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> >> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between >> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP issues - >> which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All - then Allow' or a >> 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like philosophies. > > Man, I hope I haven't come off as "Deny All - then Allow". It is just that > only the conterversial proposals are getting brought up. It doesn't concern me. This list needs people of both philosophies to drive discussion. The Deny/Allow metaphor is a little harsh as there are 3 lines here and I think your preference sounds like wanting to abstain on the votes that don't fit our criteria, rather than fight to -1 each one of them. > I feel that Apache should only support specifications that are developed > using an open community process and specs that can be freely implemented > under an Apache license. IMO the Oracle spec limits the ability to implement > it under an Apache license, and I feel that the OSGi spec is rubber stamping > a spec created outside of the community process. > > My guess is that all of these specs will pass the EC anyway, and we will > participate in them. When is comes to Apache's vote, I don't see why we > would vote for a specification that doesn't follow those points. Tempted to agree. Why +1 a JSR if it doesn't benefit our community/open-source community. So with the IDE one, the ASF don't appear to care and then it would come down to whether we think it's good for our co-communities at NetBeans, Eclipse and elsewhere - if we think they're not being damaged by it, we should abstain. With this one, we actually have an OSGi implementation so it seems like a walk-in if Felix want to join up. Otherwise, we'd abstain. Hen