www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:24:54 GMT
[resending a fourth time, apparently moderation is being ignored this week.]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> I would ask that we see if we have exhausted all efforts to
>> communication with Sun on this issue and do a risk/reward analysis on
>> steps moving forward.
> We have exhausted all steps and there is no further analysis needed.
> Sun refuses to give us a TCK without FOU restrictions.  We can't agree
> to FOU restrictions while distributing as open source.  End of story.
> We shouldn't even be participating in the JCP at this point.

Roy raises a good point.  One person recently asked (paraphrasing) "What
has the ASF done to react to the expiration of the 30 day notice period
cited by the Sun open letter?"  The concern is one of credibility and
'teeth' that we back our deadlines with some followup action.  Of course,
what is defined by 'action' is pretty broad.  Simply the new dialog on
jcp-open of the next-steps, carried out in public, is action.

Arguably, we are now redefining our relationship to JCP's in general
and our expectations of participating in any given JCP.  That's good.
All discussion of this issue has migrated into the open-sphere.  Also
very good.

To counter Roy's broad brush, not every Spec Lead violates the terms of
the JSPA as Sun has.  Withdrawing from the JCP entirely is not worth
considering, as long as there are some JSR's driven by ethical spec leads
who have adhered to the JSPA.  (That is, unless the JCP breaks down due
to Sun flexing veto muscles.)

But in terms of this *specific* JCP and the misbehavior with respect
to mutual understandings and specific agreements by the spec lead, and
the lack of corrective action on the part of the spec lead...

Isn't it time to formally withdraw from that JSR, if we still sit on it?
Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later JSR's of
the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR who's
spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
of the JSPA.  This seems only rational, no?

(However, more reading suggests that it's accepted and withdrawing from
a 'completed' JSR is rather moot.)

Not looking for votes, only feedback on the pros and cons of exiting those
disfunctional JSR's which don't need to be held up to any mirror of a new
ASF/JCP policy; only those which we can trivially determine to be already
broken in respect to adhering to the JSPA, or adhering to their charter
and that Spec's own policy?


View raw message