Polls vs Votes (was Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies)

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>]

Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> writes:

> As a non-member I may not know the full negotiation history, this
> doesn't mean that myself or committers from other projects have no
> business taking part in this discussion. 

That's not what Roy is talking about, I don't think.  The point is that
jcp-open@ is *solely* a discussion list, with no ability to issue
votes which are binding on the foundation.  And I don't think it'd
be a good idea for us to turn it into one.  Perhaps Sam should have
called it a [POLL], because that's all it really is.

The abstain vote that took place yesterday is a bad sign that we are
now operating in the JCP without any real direction.  *That* problem 
should be resolved immediately, even if it means making an imperfect
and/or temporary choice. But it's the board's job to make that choice,
not the folks on this mailing list.

Discuss? Great. Advise? Sometimes. Issue binding votes? No way.

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Re: Polls vs Votes (was Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies)

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 7/6/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> writes:
> >
> >> As a non-member I may not know the full negotiation history, this
> >> doesn't mean that myself or committers from other projects have no
> >> business taking part in this discussion.
> >
> > That's not what Roy is talking about, I don't think.  The point is
> > that
> > jcp-open@ is *solely* a discussion list, with no ability to issue
> > votes which are binding on the foundation.  And I don't think it'd
> > be a good idea for us to turn it into one.  Perhaps Sam should have
> > called it a [POLL], because that's all it really is.
> >
> > The abstain vote that took place yesterday is a bad sign that we are
> > now operating in the JCP without any real direction.  *That* problem
> > should be resolved immediately, even if it means making an imperfect
> > and/or temporary choice. But it's the board's job to make that choice,
> > not the folks on this mailing list.
>
> At the risk of appearing to play to the crowd, I think that the
> voices on this mailing list is important, and I am offended that you
> characterize our operation in the JCP as lacking direction.  The
> reason why I pushed back on Sam's proposal was because I felt they
> had at least on serious bug, and deserved an airing.  I saw (and
> still see) no connection between the FOU fight with Sun for the JCK,
> and the desire to do away w/ NDAs.

in general, i agree that policy about processes and NDAs is
independent but there is the specific issue of the use by the JCP of
NDAs to protect the TCK rather than issuing publicly a conventional
license for the TCK

apache's original reading of the JSPA was that such this contract
would allow apache to participate in the process without risking
either it's non-profit status or litigation against the membership for
breach of charter. it now appears that sun's understanding of the
contract seems to be quite different.

if sun are correct in law then apache should never have been involved
officially. unless the JCP acts soon then IMO apache must conclude
that the official reading of the JSPA is that of sun's. apache must
then either litigate, withdraw or ask the JCP to accept additional
legal framework that would allow apache to continue participation.

IMO the most pressing matter is not policy but finding an alternative
mechanism which allow apache and other non-profits to participate.

licenses are clear and easy. protecting the TCK with a conventional
software license for use by qualifying non-profits issued when the JSR
begins would allow all non-profits to decide whether their charters
allowed them to participate. NDAs worry me. they prevent matters which
really should be a matter of public record from being made public. the
terms under which apache (and any other non-profit) participates in a
JSR are crucial for apache's non-profit status. they should be a
matter of public record.

> My position is that the board should establish a ASF-wide policy on
> transparency and external party engagement, and then we adapt the
> current JCP policy, which we've been working with for quite some time
> with little ill effect, and arguably a lot of positive effect.

+1

the flaws in the current process should probably be raised through the
right JCP channels

- robert

Re: Polls vs Votes

["Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> writes:
>   
>
> Sorry, s/we exactly/we did exactly/.  Here's an excerpt of the
> text:
>
>   "Since Sun has not  responded to the ASF's open Letter
>   on this matter, the ASF is  currently in the process of formulating a new
>   policy towards the JCP  (see jcp-open@apache.org) and all future JSRs will be
>   evaluated in  light of that policy. Since the policy has not yet been
>   finalized,  the ASF reluctantly abstains from voting at this time."
>
> IOW, without a new policy, we don't know how to exercise
> our vote other than "abstain".  That's what I meang by 
> "lacking direction".
>   

Thank you that is much clearer :-)

-- 
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email, 
Calendaring (including freebusy), 
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease 
of installation/administration.

Re: Polls vs Votes

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>]

"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> writes:

> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>     At the risk of appearing to play to the crowd, I think that the
>>> voices on this mailing list is important, and I am offended that you
>>> characterize our operation in the JCP as lacking direction.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you feel offended, but IMO we exactly that in the comment
>> text you chose to use for the vote.
>>
>
> can you rephrase that a tad?

Sorry, s/we exactly/we did exactly/.  Here's an excerpt of the
text:

  "Since Sun has not  responded to the ASF's open Letter
  on this matter, the ASF is  currently in the process of formulating a new
  policy towards the JCP  (see jcp-open@apache.org) and all future JSRs will be
  evaluated in  light of that policy. Since the policy has not yet been
  finalized,  the ASF reluctantly abstains from voting at this time."

IOW, without a new policy, we don't know how to exercise
our vote other than "abstain".  That's what I meang by 
"lacking direction".

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Re: Polls vs Votes

["Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>   
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>     
>> At the risk of appearing to play to the crowd, I think that the voices
>> on this mailing list is important, and I am offended that you
>> characterize our operation in the JCP as lacking direction.
>>     
>
> I'm sorry you feel offended, but IMO we exactly that in the comment
> text you chose to use for the vote.
>   

can you rephrase that a tad?

-- 
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email, 
Calendaring (including freebusy), 
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease 
of installation/administration.

Re: Polls vs Votes

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>]

"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:

> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> writes:
>>
>>> As a non-member I may not know the full negotiation history, this
>>> doesn't mean that myself or committers from other projects have no
>>> business taking part in this discussion.
>>
>> That's not what Roy is talking about, I don't think.  The point is that
>> jcp-open@ is *solely* a discussion list, with no ability to issue
>> votes which are binding on the foundation.  And I don't think it'd
>> be a good idea for us to turn it into one.  Perhaps Sam should have
>> called it a [POLL], because that's all it really is.
>>
>> The abstain vote that took place yesterday is a bad sign that we are
>> now operating in the JCP without any real direction.  *That* problem
>> should be resolved immediately, even if it means making an imperfect
>> and/or temporary choice. But it's the board's job to make that choice,
>> not the folks on this mailing list.
>
> At the risk of appearing to play to the crowd, I think that the voices
> on this mailing list is important, and I am offended that you
> characterize our operation in the JCP as lacking direction.

I'm sorry you feel offended, but IMO we exactly that in the comment
text you chose to use for the vote.

-- 
Joe Schaefer

Re: Polls vs Votes (was Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies)

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> writes:
>
>> As a non-member I may not know the full negotiation history, this
>> doesn't mean that myself or committers from other projects have no
>> business taking part in this discussion.
>
> That's not what Roy is talking about, I don't think.  The point is  
> that
> jcp-open@ is *solely* a discussion list, with no ability to issue
> votes which are binding on the foundation.  And I don't think it'd
> be a good idea for us to turn it into one.  Perhaps Sam should have
> called it a [POLL], because that's all it really is.
>
> The abstain vote that took place yesterday is a bad sign that we are
> now operating in the JCP without any real direction.  *That* problem
> should be resolved immediately, even if it means making an imperfect
> and/or temporary choice. But it's the board's job to make that choice,
> not the folks on this mailing list.

At the risk of appearing to play to the crowd, I think that the  
voices on this mailing list is important, and I am offended that you  
characterize our operation in the JCP as lacking direction.  The  
reason why I pushed back on Sam's proposal was because I felt they  
had at least on serious bug, and deserved an airing.  I saw (and  
still see) no connection between the FOU fight with Sun for the JCK,  
and the desire to do away w/ NDAs.

My position is that the board should establish a ASF-wide policy on  
transparency and external party engagement, and then we adapt the  
current JCP policy, which we've been working with for quite some time  
with little ill effect, and arguably a lot of positive effect.

geir


>
> Discuss? Great. Advise? Sometimes. Issue binding votes? No way.
>
> -- 
> Joe Schaefer

Re: Polls vs Votes (was Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies)

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 7/3/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> writes:
>
> > As a non-member I may not know the full negotiation history, this
> > doesn't mean that myself or committers from other projects have no
> > business taking part in this discussion.
>
> That's not what Roy is talking about, I don't think.  The point is that
> jcp-open@ is *solely* a discussion list, with no ability to issue
> votes which are binding on the foundation.  And I don't think it'd
> be a good idea for us to turn it into one.  Perhaps Sam should have
> called it a [POLL], because that's all it really is.

+1

but it's important (for anyone who's coming new to this discussion) to
understand that members are very touchy about the JCP since it
involves matters of the apache charter. there are significant legal
consequences for apache and the membership if we get this wrong. in
the end, the members are responsible and there may even be questions
of liability.

but i hope that everyone will cut each other a little more slack in
these difficult times

- robert