www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@buni.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:48:44 GMT
Sun knew Apache was an open source organization.  Why should the expect 
it to vote for things that aren't conducive to open source when it uses 
Apache to legitimize the JCP?  That logic baffles me...Taking the high 
road is bending over?  Who are we?  Congress?

Jeff Genender wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 7/6/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I really don't like the "vote against" component.  IMHO, that is
>>> disruptive and will give us an interesting reputation.  I would
>>> recommend we simply pull out of JSRs that don't play by the rules.
>>> I just wouldn't participate, not be a road block.
>> We have a vote within the Executive Committee.  Hence, why should we
>> abdicate our responsibility to vote in line with our own policies?
> Because we are invited to the committee based on our technical acumen.
> If we change our votes that are supposed to be based on the technical
> components to -1s for political reasons (or reasons that are not based
> on technical merits), then we will be viewed as activists, and likely
> won't be invited in the future.  The invites should be based on our
> technical capabilities.  Whether we choose to accept being on these JSRs
>  based on our policies is our choice, but lets not become a roadblock.
> Lets take the high road.
> Jeff
>> AFAIK, JCP votes are majority - not requiring unanimous consent;
>> though I have heard that Sun wields veto authority on certain votes.
>> -- justin

Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Multi-platform and extensible Email, 
Calendaring (including freebusy), 
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease 
of installation/administration.

View raw message