Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61027 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2007 04:07:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2007 04:07:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 9886 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2007 04:07:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 9769 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2007 04:07:43 -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 9760 invoked by uid 99); 8 Aug 2007 04:07:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:07:43 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.86.168.179] (HELO mxout-04.mxes.net) (216.86.168.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:07:36 +0000 Received: from [166.129.246.153] (unknown [166.129.246.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEEDA321A for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <070ACE15-7A75-432B-88C3-3DD2D396DCC5@hogstrom.org> References: <46ADF926.1020204@apache.org> <04E07DE6-6AAF-42D9-BBEA-3A4AFFFBB418@pobox.com> <070ACE15-7A75-432B-88C3-3DD2D396DCC5@hogstrom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." Subject: Re: Policy for being on a JSR? Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:06:13 -0400 To: jcp-open@apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Aug 7, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> I meant to ask this because it applies for Java EE, as well as the >> ones today. >> >> What's the consensus? I can probably argue this one either way. > > It would seem prudent to me to wait until the JSR is complete and > on an individual basis determine if the Spec, TCK and other license > issues are acceptable. The right way to solve this would seem to > be to get the JCP to fix the T's and C's on a spec first. > > I thought the reason we voted no was that the terms weren't clearly > spelled out. No - we vote no when Sun is the spec lead, because it's our POV that any signatory of the JSPA that isn't living up to the obligations of the JSPA shouldn't be able to do things like start new JSRs until their non-compliance is resolved. > I personally don't think we should vote down every spec where the > lead is from Sun but should if the terms are inappropriate. Uh huh. :) We will vote against any spec where Sun is the spec lead until Sun fixes the non-compliance problem. Friends don't let friends violate JSPAs. > Seems like we can be getting ourselves in the position of people > accepting us voting no and possibly implementing the spec later if > things are cool which diminishes the power of our vote. Could be. Clearly this is overstating it, but the only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing. I think Java is too important to let Sun get away with this. Ask a friendly neighborhood EC member what they are doing. :) > > I'm glad Geronimo was able to achieve Java EE 5.0 certification > because I think 6.0 is going to not be as easy. One never can tell. geir