Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 82898 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2007 22:04:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2007 22:04:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 70362 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2007 22:04:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 70268 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2007 22:04:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list jcp-open@apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for jcp-open@apache.org Received: (qmail 22670 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jul 2007 20:30:25 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.226 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=fYXFoyN2JFikrl4lsaUwbafBh3RYs3bLdwnBDiucSS60lPuD7JaDq9+1WQh7FZ9xXLu+uKK79w0H0vVOSeqLS/pgvCTLVC1LoDF6JG+OnEG9J1InoJHMen+TwPGwjLeLv4/p1HKyhJEbDqwShTI4sUa/6xNowuY0RhX79gHLUao= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=pZT9wt472HiXKD+9m35aWfHQc+KE1qbAnbfmZGg5RDM/M0W/x9+sHoSl8aqGy0EDBaXtodOB/M81B8LKz0oODN3AstnD4n03k5Na5PnlrdWnteBekU5xYeUFiIBfS+df1nKaEoT4wlf14M+xEuu/M0kpalc8Clu9ljsB8eqvgUc= Message-ID: <2d12b2f00707051330p6cbab51v67ddf5da66e9ca8a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:30:00 -0700 From: "Henri Yandell" Sender: hyandell@gmail.com To: jcp-open@apache.org Subject: Proposed policy going forward MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 07be522b8fc7f5c9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Sam has asked for a plan of action. Lots of emails on his, so here's what I think: 1) We won't run non-open TCKs. 2) We will vote -1 on each JSR we're involved in that is not open (either for the TCK, or some other reason). 3) We'll still get involved heavily with JSR EGs. 4) We'll still implement JSRs. --- The first one means that, yes, we will not sign NDAs as they are not open. This is hard for existing projects who are tied to such things and my line here would be: * Any project who have officially passed a TCK can continue to run that SAME TCK again for future releases. Projects who have not passed one and have licensed one are out of luck unless they convince us/me that it's right about to happen. The second one would be unilateral. If you are a part of the JCP as an ASF member, then that is how you vote. If you're there as an individual, then whatever you want is fine. Of course we will also accept any patches that increase TCK compliance - the TCK compliance shouldn't make a difference to us as it'll also be a patch that fixes a bug as per the spec. As a disclaimer; I've never run a TCK though I did sign the NDA recently as I'm pondering trying to get and run the JSTL 1.1 TCK. From what I hear, they're abysmally written pieces of software that take an age to run. Personally it seems like a lot of work that just bogs down our ability to release early and release often. So that's my view/proposed plan. We had an accepted middle ground, the middle moved, we should move to the new middle. Hen