Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66493 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2007 23:52:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jul 2007 23:52:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 88924 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2007 23:52:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 88714 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2007 23:52:46 -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 Received: (qmail 88705 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jul 2007 23:52:46 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:52:46 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [204.127.192.83] (HELO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.192.83) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:52:42 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (c-68-50-159-124.hsd1.md.comcast.net[68.50.159.124]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20070703235222m130052bcqe>; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:52:22 +0000 Message-ID: <468AE134.6020100@apache.org> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:52:20 -0400 From: Mark Thomas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jcp-open@apache.org Subject: Re: JSR 316: Java Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 Specification References: <19e0530f0707031308s6e08f2d9g16eb6a41e4fed34@mail.gmail.com> <468ADB02.8010904@rowe-clan.net> <87k5th83bv.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> In-Reply-To: <87k5th83bv.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Joe Schaefer wrote: > "William A. Rowe, Jr." writes: > >> So, to vote to proceed here, we are basically ratifying that we accept the >> various situations at those other JSRs. This gets complicated. > > It's not complicated at all if you just vote "no" on any Sun-led spec > until they are in compliance with the JSPA. We don't need to draft > an expansive JCP policy to determine how to vote on such JSRs. +1. As my understanding of how the JCP works grows, the more approriate this approach seems. It also provides a way forward in light of the complete lack of response to our open letter. Is another open letter called for to let them know what is coming? Is there anything we can do to try and get other voters to take a similar line? Mark