Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 SRS0=9UeO=M5=apache.org=rolandw@srs.kundenserver.de designates
 212.227.126.179 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <46AF80BC.6060906@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:34:36 +0200
From: Roland Weber <rolandw@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070730 SeaMonkey/1.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jcp-open@apache.org
Subject: Re: JSR-317 and JSR-318 Vote Today
References: <11A2D4C6-4D44-4BAC-932A-D3708D7EB51B@pobox.com>
 <46AEF04E.40605@joda.org>
In-Reply-To: <46AEF04E.40605@joda.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I believe that the vote 'no to Sun-led JSRs' strategy is the correct one
> for the foreseeable future. Sun have broken their JSPA agreement,
> knowing we can't sue. This is currently our best course of action,
> however we do need to determine what our next strategy is if this one
> fails to succeed.

I believe the technical term is "exit strategy". I agree with you
that the VNTS-JSRs strategy is the best for now, but also with Andy's
assessment that this strategy is basically ineffective. Either other
participants of the JCP put pressure on Sun, or this situation will
not be resolved at all.
It's taken two months of discussion to get to this temporary strategy,
it will take even longer to get to the next one. Sun will have ample
time to reconsider, or not. If they do, everything's peachy. So the
discussion should focus on the other case.

cheers,
  Roland