Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <2E0FCC72-9448-4B1E-9990-26D56C330575@apache.org>
References: <19e0530f0705122026l4403918bt8903c8fce0a1cf4d@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fy60wmah.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <152428CC-E05D-41B9-A529-79BB3B93EFA1@pobox.com>
 <87bqgowk42.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <B3537C8F-48A9-4665-8295-EADDD78F2981@pobox.com>
 <87irawupnx.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <2E0FCC72-9448-4B1E-9990-26D56C330575@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <29BA17EF-9969-44A3-AC7C-3160B76BC003@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:02:55 -0700
To: jcp-open@apache.org

On May 14, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of the  
> JSPA.  It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in mind  
> going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP that is  
> in violation of the rules.  True, the structure of the JCP is that  
> in which Sun is is the common countersigner to the JSPA, but we  
> shouldn't "beatify" their position in the ecosystem.  Sure, they  
> invented Java, and all things considered, have done a decent job of  
> stewardship.  However, the fundamental premise behind the JCP is  
> that it's a community process, and I think we should seriously test  
> this assertion and decide what to do once we know.

Is there any recourse in the JCP process to censure Sun or remove Sun  
from the JCP since they are (in our opinion) violating the agreements  
that form the foundation of the JCP itself?

-dain