www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <nia...@apache.org>
Subject Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:41:28 GMT
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:

"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."


> geir

View raw message