www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:57:51 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
>> On 6/29/07, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> I proposed some concrete wording 6 weeks ago (as of next Monday).  It
>>> got three plus ones, but recently this thread has meandered off into
>>> other directions.
>>
>> +1 to your suggested policy changes.
>>
>> I'd also be okay if we make it retroactive and withdraw from any EG
>> that doesn't adhere to the new terms - though I understand that may
>> cause us considerable pain and may temporarily force some projects not
>> to be able to release because they won't have TCK access any more.
>> Yet, it's a good way to force the matter to a resolution by bringing
>> our participation within the JCP to a screeching halt.  -- justin
> 
> Lets be clear and keep things separate :
> 
> 1) Using TCKs under NDA.  That is independent of whether or not we are
> part of the EG - there's no necessary relationship.
> 
> 2) Participating in EGs.

I'd be happy, as a first step, for the ASF to withdraw from all
dysfunctional EG's which clearly don't produce open specifications,
irrespective of NDA's, who is the lead, etc.

Second step, do we use TCK's that are under NDA?

Third step, do we withdraw from EGs that are only constructed under
the blinds of NDAs?

The bit about "the ASF won't use a TCK under NDA" is new.  I don't think
we need to be retroactive.  I don't think we need to "spring" this on our
friendly EGs.  Let them come to a conclusion.

A new EG?  Sure, lets insist on a open TCK, or at least sans-NDA.

But backspace to EGs we participate in that are more deeply flawed.
Let's extricate the foundation from those, first.

Bill


Mime
View raw message