www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:03:19 GMT
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>> I don't think that is enough.  When a bully starts kicking you around
>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed  
>> by Sun,
>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
> Well, as this is the *kick-off* vote, going nuclear right from the
> get-go might be the wrong message. We can still vote NO on the final
> resolution (which seems to be sometime Q4 '08) and we might even be  
> able
> to rally up a few more supporters from the EG.

Excuse me, but how the hell can a NO vote by us on this issue be
considered going nuclear?  The "kick-off" vote is when the EC decides
who gets to be spec-lead.  This is the only vote in which this specific
objection is truly applicable (all other votes are too late -- it is
nearly impossible to change the spec lead once the JSR is approved
to start, and such a change vote is vetoable by Sun in any case).
All we are doing is making the faintest of in-process objections.

Going nuclear would be to do what we told Sun we would do if they
did not agree to our original requirements: resign from the EC,
start our own (neutral) standards forum, and burn the JCP to the
ground.  It is absolutely pathetic that we are allowing Sun to
dictate the terms on "standards" in which Apache provides
significant intellectual input and almost all the legitimacy.

Obviously, it is too late now for this vote, but we need to get our
heads out of the sand before the next one.

> I'm with Geir here. We did make a statement by not saying "Yes" but
> there is no reason to annoy everyone besides Sun right at the start.

Yes there is -- Sun can ignore us until a majority opposes them.
The only way that is going to happen is if we lead.

> To stretch your metaphor a bit more: You do not play chess with a  
> bully.
>  And ATM IMHO chess is needed, not BFT.

Apparently you missed the last seven years of chess.  If we don't
show a little backbone here, then all we are doing is organizing
free labor for the sole benefit of a for-profit corporation.
I would not have allowed that while I was on the ASF board.


View raw message