www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:51:04 GMT
Perfect. my 2 cents - with abstain.

-- dims

On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Niall Pemberton <niallp@apache.org> wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <joe+apache@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Niclas Hedhman" <niclas@hedhman.org> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK?  Will development
of this JSR
> > >>> >> require a private mailing list?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
> > >>> 'unknown',
> > >>> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing
list to
> > >>> >> do so too.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above
is
> > >>> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise
a
> > >>> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> > >>> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
> > >>
> > >> Exactly.
> > >>
> > >> Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
> > >> 19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July.  For context, here is the vote for
> > >> servlet 2.4:
> > >>
> > >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
> > >>
> > >> Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
> > >> neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote.  Furthermore, by
> > >> issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
> > >> else to reconsider their votes.  The latter is something we can work
> > >> on improving in the future.
> > >>
> > >> I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote.  I really don't.  But
> > > I just want to have a framework.  We've asked for confirmation that
> > > there would be no FOU and we got it.
> > >
> > > Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
> > > have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
> > >
> > > I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
> > > reject JSRs ahead of time.
> > >
> > > How about this :
> > >
> > > We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and the
> > > spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no on
> > > following votes.  Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we make the
> > > announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
> >
> > Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about voting
> > with the following statement:
>
> +1
>
> > "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> > Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
> > open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
> > open Letter on this subject, the ASF is currently in the process of
> > formulating a new policy towards the JCP (see jcp-open@apache.org) and
> > all future JSRs will be evaluated in light of that policy. Since the
> > policy has not yet been finalized the ASF reluctantly votes
> > (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
>
> +1
>
> - Sam Ruby
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

Mime
View raw message