www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe+apa...@sunstarsys.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round 2
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:41:37 GMT
Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> writes:

> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 7/6/07, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Invites?  We were elected.  And, we recently won 'JCP Member of the
>> Year' again.  If the JCP voting populace is dis-satisfied with our
>> behavior, they have an opportunity to voice that displeasure by voting
>> us off the EC when our term expires soon.  Until then, I think we
>> should act according to our principles - as we have in the past -
>> within the JCP.
> Ok..Im refering to the JSRs...those are invites.

Participation in EG's doesn't involve votes, and for some reason
you are objecting to Matt's rationale for voting no in the EC
on a JSR.  I don't see the connection.  Here's what Matt wrote:

    "Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
    that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
    implements the specification or the consequences of testing that
    imposes use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with
    the AL 2.0 the ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."

I'm not exactly sure what he's aiming for, but I believe most of
it is covered by just observing that we believe such restrictions
violate the JSPA.  I continue to wonder what we should do about
Section 5E of the JSPA, and maybe Matt's language is an attempt
to speak to that.  If so, I applaud his efforts.

Joe Schaefer

View raw message