www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:11:41 GMT
On 6/27/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>
> My concern here is where we are going with this.  I apologize in advance
> if I missed something regarding the JCK vs TCK with respect to Harmony.
> If I did, please point it out.


sadly, most of the extensive previous discussions within apache have had to
be private :-/

I asked in a previous email about the open letter to Sun about if anyone
> has made direct contact with those folks instead of expecting a public
> response to the open letter.  Calling a company out publicly may be a
> bit much to expect a public response.  I just hope that we have followed
> through with the personal side before being heavy handed.  Again, I may
> have not been privy to past discussions so it possible I am not seeing
> this with full view.


AIUI apache has been talking with sun privately about the JCP for around a
decade. AIUI contacts continue.

the difficulty of private contacts is that it means keeping people in the
dark. IMO the time has come to talk about these things openly. IMHO the open
letter was part of that process. we gave sun the opportunity to response
publicly. they have chosen not to take it.

IMHO it's good that we can now discuss these issues in public

I think the issue of JCK vs TCK and our stance is a difficult one.  I
> would hope we do not cut off our nose to spite our face.  As I
> understand it, the JCK is a different testing animal than the TCKs.
> They test different things AFAICT.
>
> The TCKs allow our products to compete in the market place with
> commercial and other open source offerings (non-Apache).  I think our
> ability to pass these TCKs allows us to have people in the community
> want to adopt our products, and ultimately helps us build even more
> community and followers.  It allows folks to take us really seriously.
> But stopping or hindering our ability to obtain and use newer TCKs will
> likely have the effect of people not wanting to adopt some of our
> products because they are not "certified" or do not pass certification
> tests.


apache is a non-profit organisation. we are all bound by our charter both
legally, ethically and morally.

I believe this is a large risk to take because Sun will not bend to a
> JCK license or has not responded publicly to the open letter.  I think
> risking several projects' ability to continue adoption due to
> certification with respect to an issue with Harmony is something we
> should really examine carefully and weigh the risk vs reward on what we
> are about to do.


IMO it's better to risk lower adoption rates than to close the efforts
entirely

the fatal flaw with the JCP is the power given to the specification lead.
the vast majority of specification leads have not abused their position.
however, apache's non-profit status requires that in the future, we have
more substantial guarantees that the specification lead will behave
ethically. apache needs to frame a new policy so that specification leads
understand what the requirements for official participation from apache so
that they can clearly agree or disagree to these terms before the process
starts.

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.


fine: propose some steps and post your analysis ;-)

Thoughts?  Can I help with this somewhere?


of course - analyse, synthesis and post your findings ;-)

our approach to the JCP going forward will be formulated in public on this
list

- robert

Mime
View raw message