www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip at Apache <fha...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round 2
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:33:27 GMT
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>>> ...http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/jcp/...
>>
>> I like your proposal, it has no impact on existing agreements yet
>> allows us to move forward.
>>
>
> So already existing project aren't affected at all yet
> newer (potential) projects are?
>
> And the parity is where?
>
> "Bobby, spit out that gum right now."
> "But teacher, Billy is chewing gum; how come he
>  can but I can't?"
> "Well, Billy was here last year when we allowed
>  gum chewing, but even though we disallowed it
>  this year, we're still letting previous
>  chewers enjoy their gum fix."
hmm, does this mean I have to put seat belts in 58 Dodge Coronet, cause 
new cars require it :)
just thought I throw a stick in the wheel,
personally I'm against the existing vs "no new" NDAs. If we accept a 
JSR, then a committer on the project should get access, not just the 
ones who used to have access.
>
> Shouldn't one goal be to affect change *in the current
> JCP/JSRs?* To not only stop allowing us to go along
> with a system we think is broken, but to also fix
> what *is* broken?
yes, that's what's needed here

Filip
>
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message