On 6/27/07, Jeff Genender <email@example.com> 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.
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
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.
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.
Thoughts? Can I help with this somewhere?