www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:58:43 GMT
This clearly isn't one of our finest moments.  It's apparent to me  
that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a  
reason.  We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have  
backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason  
that actually makes logical sense to me.  I gave you my best advice  
on what to do, but didn't get very far.

I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that  
happy about it.

"The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates  
following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony  
project under terms complaint with the JSPA. 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 abstains from voting at this time.  This is not a  
statement about the technology."

I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.


On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Well, then, say that.   Don't invent other things, or ask them to  
> use a time-machine to know what we want.
> geir
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> There were two reasons given not to vote yes :
>>> 1) we wanted to demand that they do everything in public.  I  
>>> think we've
>>> since backed down from that.
>>> 2) we wanted to demand that they have no NDAs for the TCK.  I  
>>> think that
>>> this is unreasonable w/o prior warning.
>> 3) We have no faith that their statement of no-FOU-restrictions  
>> (or other
>>    unacceptable additional terms) will be honored based on prior  
>> conduct.

View raw message