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: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:17:37 GMT

On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> [resending a fourth time, apparently moderation is being ignored  
> this week.]
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>> I would ask that we see if we have exhausted all efforts to
>>> communication with Sun on this issue and do a risk/reward  
>>> analysis on
>>> steps moving forward.
>>
>> We have exhausted all steps and there is no further analysis needed.
>> Sun refuses to give us a TCK without FOU restrictions.  We can't  
>> agree
>> to FOU restrictions while distributing as open source.  End of story.
>> We shouldn't even be participating in the JCP at this point.
>
> Roy raises a good point.  One person recently asked (paraphrasing)  
> "What
> has the ASF done to react to the expiration of the 30 day notice  
> period
> cited by the Sun open letter?"  The concern is one of credibility and
> 'teeth' that we back our deadlines with some followup action.  Of  
> course,
> what is defined by 'action' is pretty broad.  Simply the new dialog on
> jcp-open of the next-steps, carried out in public, is action.
>
> Arguably, we are now redefining our relationship to JCP's in general
> and our expectations of participating in any given JCP.  That's good.
> All discussion of this issue has migrated into the open-sphere.  Also
> very good.
>
> To counter Roy's broad brush, not every Spec Lead violates the  
> terms of
> the JSPA as Sun has.  Withdrawing from the JCP entirely is not worth
> considering, as long as there are some JSR's driven by ethical spec  
> leads
> who have adhered to the JSPA.  (That is, unless the JCP breaks down  
> due
> to Sun flexing veto muscles.)
>
> But in terms of this *specific* JCP and the misbehavior with respect
> to mutual understandings and specific agreements by the spec lead, and
> the lack of corrective action on the part of the spec lead...
>
> Isn't it time to formally withdraw from that JSR, if we still sit  
> on it?

That JSR is over.  It's done.


> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later  
> JSR's of
> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR  
> who's
> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
> of the JSPA.  This seems only rational, no?

That would be every Sun-led JSR.

>
> (However, more reading suggests that it's accepted and withdrawing  
> from
> a 'completed' JSR is rather moot.)

Yes

>
> Not looking for votes, only feedback on the pros and cons of  
> exiting those
> disfunctional JSR's which don't need to be held up to any mirror of  
> a new
> ASF/JCP policy; only those which we can trivially determine to be  
> already
> broken in respect to adhering to the JSPA, or adhering to their  
> charter
> and that Spec's own policy?

This is the basic question we've always toyed with - is it worth  
holding our nose because of the benefits our participation brings to  
the JCP?

I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes.  I'd also  
say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an  
important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining  
dark corners of the JCP.  (The other remaining is Java ME)

I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the  
license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due  
to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept  
things quiet.  Things are no longer quiet.  We've woken a sleeping  
giant.

So what to do?  We are currently asking that each spec lead declare  
they will offer the TCK under no-FOU terms, but I do wonder if that's  
hollow when coming from Sun....

geir






Mime
View raw message