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 19:24:07 GMT
On 6/27/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jeff Genender 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > We had been doing that continuously for six months prior to the letter.
> > The letter was posted because Sun refused to do what they promised us
> > in order to keep us in the JCP the last time this came up.
> >
> Ok...my late entry to the game ;-)

not late - the flows have previously been private: now there are 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.
> >
> > That is irrelevant.  We only distribute open source.
> >
> Great...that is kind of my point...so where is the disconnect then?
> Sounds like business as usual for us, no?  We are simply certifying our
> wares and distributing open source?

AL2.0+FOU is not OSI compliant


> Apache does not need to participate in closed standard groups.
> > Apache is fully capable of defining its own standards based
> > upon the code produced by the same group of collaborating companies
> > that do all the real work with the JCP anyway.
> >
> Is it closed or are we simply ambassadors from our representative
> projects/Apache where we should theoretically be discussing issues in
> the public as for ideas on JSRs and letting these
> ambassadors/representatives bring these to the JSR group?  Should we not
> be bringing our Apache community ideas representative of the community
> and submit those to the JSR?  Sun seems to feel we bring a lot of
> credibility to the table (or so I have have told by them specifically).
> If we are being proper Apache representatives, we should be discussing
> JSR issues in jcp-open and our respective project dev lists.  Doesn't
> that make this proper for Apache?

this sounds how i'd prefer to see apache contribute :-)

the problem is the NDAs: they ensure discussions happen only privately
between  a subset of apache experts

probably there's some education that's required: most specification leads
don't seem to understand that apache's contribution is effectively just the
same as having the particular expert in the group unless we are able to
discuss matters in public. (maybe you could write something up about that.)

IMHO this is a process issue with the way most specification leads run their
JSRs. a mailing list setup like apache (user, dev, private) would make
things a lot easier for everyone. any matters raised on user or dev could be
freely and publically discussed with the NDA covering only matters that are
necessarily private. this would allow maximum participation from apache.

This all may be moot...

not moot at all

but I have to
> grok this...so sorry for some of these questions.

questions are great :-)

- robert

View raw message