www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apa...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:06:47 GMT
--- Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> --- Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 7/13/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I also did not say do nothing.  I was shooting
> > holes in taking a hard
> > > line approach (which you  offered) that may
> > ultimately "cut off our nose
> > > to spite our face".  Playing the ace card with a
> > hand full of other
> > > cards will likely not be good for anyone.
> > 
> > What other cards do we have left?
> > 
> > Food for thought: if it is obvious that we never
> > will take a hard line
> > approach, then we might as well not try.  On the
> > other hand, if a hard
> > line approach is something we are willing to take
> at
> > some point, we
> > need to be able to define what that point is.
> > 
> > In other words, does pragmatic == "bend over"; or
> > does pragmatic mean
> > that we will give a little, but only while there
> is
> > reasonable hope of
> > an acceptable solution?
> > 
> > I'm in the latter camp, myself.  And seeing this
> > declared an 'impasse'
> > in February and not getting any public response to
> > the open letter
> > published in April means that we are running low
> on
> > cards, and we
> > should now be planning what the end game looks
> like.
> > 
> > Geir has been tasked to come up with this plan. 
> If
> > you have any
> > suggestions, or happen to have an ace up your
> > sleeve, now would be a
> > good time to come forward.
> > 
> 
> See another email from me which talks about
> maintenance and the JCP2 rules. Apache could force
> JSR
> 176 into maintenance and the reason even be license
> clarity etc. If the person/lead from Sun stops
> responding to the group then the EG can get him
> replaced with another. If they don't want to
> continue
> the JSR they can always let someone else do it and
> you
> guys can use a transfer ballot. Might take a long
> time, but at least you can get more folks involved
> in
> the direct negotiation and see how other companies
> will react as well. This will give another option
> which can be followed for now.
> 

Well, apparently I forgot to send it and have it only
in draft. Let me wrap it up.

Wade

Mime
View raw message