You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> on 2007/07/02 12:26:06 UTC
Fwd: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
Apache for this JSR. (today)
geir
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Bill Shannon
> Date: July 1, 2007 8:06:25 PM EDT
> To: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
>
> That's correct, there's no change in that regard. There haven't been
> such restrictions for any of the Java EE related TCKs and we're not
> adding
> any such restrictions.
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> can you please confirm that there won't be any field of use
>> restrictions in the TCK license that limit how an implementation
>> that passes the TCK can be used?
>> geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
>>
>>> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
>>> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>>>
>>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
>>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>>
>> "What we must have is a publicly known set of terms delivered at final
>> review, which remains publicly posted."
>>
>> I think that's a good policy, and expect whoever wrote that to do his
>> best to stick to his guns.
>
> This isn't final review. This is the vote to accept the initial JSR. They
> expect final release in Q4 of 2008.
Then let's at least least note in our vote, yay or nay, that we are
expecting a known set of public terms for the TCK and RI at final review.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
>
>> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
>> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>
> "What we must have is a publicly known set of terms delivered at
> final
> review, which remains publicly posted."
>
> I think that's a good policy, and expect whoever wrote that to do his
> best to stick to his guns.
This isn't final review. This is the vote to accept the initial
JSR. They expect final release in Q4 of 2008.
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: Fwd: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>
> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
> Apache for this JSR. (today)
"What we must have is a publicly known set of terms delivered at final
review, which remains publicly posted."
I think that's a good policy, and expect whoever wrote that to do his
best to stick to his guns.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Geir,
Was there a post when this vote got started at the JCP? I don't see
one in my mail archive but my ISP hasn't been the most reliable as of
late. Or, better stated, how could I better track these issues?
It seems that there was a lot of discussion yesterday on this topic
at the last minute which I think put you in a bad spot.
I know business as usual has been a little out of sorts since the
Open Letter went out.
Thanks
On Jul 2, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0),
> confirmed that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for
> this JSR.
>
> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf
> of Apache for this JSR. (today)
>
> geir
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Bill Shannon
>> Date: July 1, 2007 8:06:25 PM EDT
>> To: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
>>
>> That's correct, there's no change in that regard. There haven't been
>> such restrictions for any of the Java EE related TCKs and we're
>> not adding
>> any such restrictions.
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> can you please confirm that there won't be any field of use
>>> restrictions in the TCK license that limit how an implementation
>>> that passes the TCK can be used?
>>> geir
>
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I think that we should :
>>
>> 1) note our support for working in the open (it's like "the Apache
>> Way")
>> 2) in our vote, also note that we expect them to do technical work in
>> public
>> 3) we will have people on that EG -> let *them* report back to us if
>> the EG is doing technical development in public (and see if the EG is
>> reacting to ASF representation urging them to do the tech work in
>> public).
>> 4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
>> future votes for that JSR.
>>
>> This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
>
> I'm with you up until #4 as I don't see how that's a suitable stick to
> force them to play nice. Can we withdraw support for the EG at a
> later point if they don't adhere to making the technical decisions on
> the public list? That could be something at the EC level or simply
> withdrawing our representation and go off on our own path. -- justin
Of course. We can make as big a stink as we want. Withdraw from the
EG and vote no on the rest of the votes for that JSR.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I was hoping we could finish the discussion, actually...
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> In any case, Geir said:
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>>
>> I've seen objections. So I'm assuming that we will NOT
>> be voting Yes.
After careful consideration, I'm -1 (probably non-binding) on voting YES.
Either Abstain or No would be appropriate, and I believe Abstain is a better
statement of the state-of-affairs on this thread. WITH the statement Niall
drafted (and some small revisions in my followup to his post).
Bill
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I think we should go with "NO". I changed my mind from abstain after
Roy's email.
thanks,
dims
On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
> >> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
> >>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
> >>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
> >>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
> >>> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on
> >>> what to do, but didn't get very far.
> >>
> >> That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir.
> >
> > It was today, Joe.
>
> It sounds to me, based on what you've written, like the "hard-line
> reason that actually makes logical sense", i.e. "no", is what you
> would've liked to have done. If that's really the best choice in
> your view, what's stopping you from changing the vote to that?
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/3/07, Niall Pemberton <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
> >>>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
> >>>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
> >>>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line
> >>>> reason that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best
> >>>> advice on what to do, but didn't get very far.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
> >>>> happy about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
> >>>> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
> >>>> project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
> >>>> responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not
> >>>> a statement about the technology."
> >>>>
> >>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
> >>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
> >>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
> >>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
> >>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
> >>>
> >>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed by Sun,
> >>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
> >>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
> >>
> >> That's what I said earlier. No one but you seems to agree, though.
> >>
> >
> > Huh? People agreed with not voting Yes; people varied on whether
> > it should be a No or an Abstain, and people worried about the
> > wording/rationale to provide a clear basis for the reason
> > for the vote without causing you or the ASF any undue and
> > unwarranted backlash. I am quite comfortable with us
> > using either statement, since both are true, both are
> > valid reasons and both are simple shades of the same
> > color.
>
> I would have voted Yes, but was OK with abstain. IMO voting No at this
> point on this JSR would have been wrong.
+1
> Given that Geir had ascertained that there would be no FOU restriction
> on this JSR - voting Yes would have been a continuation of existing policy.
+1
> Voting No is effectively implementing a new policy, which would have
> been premature since this debate is about formulating that policy and
> has not yet been agreed.
+1
- robert
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me that
>> the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a reason. We
>> had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have backed away
>> from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason that actually
>> makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on what to do, but
>> didn't get very far.
I'm sorry you felt that way Geir, and my 2c - I already suggested my own
opinion is non-binding (haven't been here long enough) and do trust you as
the agent of the ASF to cast what you believe is the best vote for our
purposes. That said...
Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> As I see it the arguments against a yes are:
> 1) A broader issue with the JCP and Sun not sticking to the terms of
> the JSPA.
> 2) A TCK that requires an NDA.
>
> It is right to mention our concerns about 1). 2) should be something
> we continue to push for via our participatian in the EG.
I completely agree, Mark. 1) was my larger concern (and the fact that
we don't see a TCK contract that actually accomplishes the no FOU required
assertion - yet we didn't know that Tiger would inflict an FOU, so we are
not aware of what new surprise might be in store for us but are legitimately
concerned about what those might be.)
So on the basis of 1...
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Kick em hard, where it hurts, and don't stop until they agree to be
> held up to their own rules. There is no reason for us to continue
> this farce of a Java Community Process when the community doesn't
> adhere to the process.
As much as I agree, I think this is reserved for later votes, not those
floating the idea of a new spec. When time comes to adopt the spec, and
when the true TCK contract is unveiled, we will know how to vote.
Back to Mark's words...
> The ASF supports further improvements to the servlet specification and
> therefore votes for this JSR. However, the ASF has serious
> reservations about how the JCP operates following Sun's refusal to
> provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under terms complaint
> with the JSPA. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's open Letter on
> this subject, the ASF is currently in the process of formulating a new
> policy towards the JCP (see jcp-open@apache.org) and the ASF's
> participation in this, other current, and all future JSRs, will be
> guided by this policy.
Exactly. Yet I would not have voted /for/ this JSR, simply not voted
/against/ this JSR. We do think servlet 3.0 is a grand idea. We just
think it's wanting for a clearer definition of the ethos it will be
unveiled under.
Bill
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Chess is a much more interesting game when you get to publicly explain your
>> strategy to your opponent before attempting to execute on it...
>
> Heh, then you should play more games against yourself. ;-)
> FWIW, your reason for voting no is superior to any of the
> others I've seen so far.
ROFL - My son can kick my ass, today. When we played, every time I was
at the advantage, I'd spin the chess board to him and let him play out
my game, while I tried to recover ;)
>> I think that a "no" vote for this reason should be coordinated for
>> maximum impact, at least to start.
>
> One move at a time.
+1
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:18 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>>>>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>>>>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
>>>>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
>>>>> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on
>>>>> what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>>>
>>>> That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir.
>>>
>>> It was today, Joe.
>>
>> It sounds to me, based on what you've written, like the "hard-line
>> reason that actually makes logical sense", i.e. "no", is what you
>> would've liked to have done. If that's really the best choice in
>> your view, what's stopping you from changing the vote to that?
>
> Chess is a much more interesting game when you get to publicly explain your
> strategy to your opponent before attempting to execute on it...
Heh, then you should play more games against yourself. ;-)
FWIW, your reason for voting no is superior to any of the
others I've seen so far.
> I think that a "no" vote for this reason should be coordinated for
> maximum impact, at least to start.
One move at a time.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:18 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>>>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>>>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to
>>>> have
>>>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line
>>>> reason
>>>> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best
>>>> advice on
>>>> what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>>
>>> That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir.
>>
>> It was today, Joe.
>
> It sounds to me, based on what you've written, like the "hard-line
> reason that actually makes logical sense", i.e. "no", is what you
> would've liked to have done. If that's really the best choice in
> your view, what's stopping you from changing the vote to that?
Chess is a much more interesting game when you get to publicly
explain your strategy to your opponent before attempting to execute
on it...
I think that a "no" vote for this reason should be coordinated for
maximum impact, at least to start.
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
>>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
>>> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on
>>> what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>
>> That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir.
>
> It was today, Joe.
It sounds to me, based on what you've written, like the "hard-line
reason that actually makes logical sense", i.e. "no", is what you
would've liked to have done. If that's really the best choice in
your view, what's stopping you from changing the vote to that?
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
>> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best
>> advice on
>> what to do, but didn't get very far.
>
> That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir.
It was today, Joe.
> Without
> a policy to guide you, you should vote your conscience, as the person
> best armed with all the relevant facts. We rely on individuals to
> represent the foundation by exercising their own best judgment, and
> give them the tools and support to make that happen.
>
> If you think it's in the foundation's best interests to cast its
> vote in
> some other way, then nothing, not even whatever the majority
> opinion of
> this list happens to be today, should prevent you from exercising
> your
> own best judgment. I fully support your ability to cast a properly
> considered vote on behalf of the ASF, whatever that vote may be.
Thanks for the support, but considering the Sturm and Drang, I went
with the abstention with the comment :
The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
Sun's refusal to provide the Java SE TCK to the Apache Harmony
project under terms complaint with the JSPA. 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. This is not a
statement about the technology.
That seemed to have consensus opinion, and I'll note our own new
Chairman* suggested a "yes" vote wouldn't be appropriate.
geir
*I'll note that I understand that Jim was acting as a member of the
community, not the Chair of the foundation's BOD, but now that he's
the new Chair, we get to jerk his chain about this. After all, we
did it to greg.
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
> that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on
> what to do, but didn't get very far.
That's because this isn't how decisions are made at Apache, Geir. Without
a policy to guide you, you should vote your conscience, as the person
best armed with all the relevant facts. We rely on individuals to
represent the foundation by exercising their own best judgment, and
give them the tools and support to make that happen.
If you think it's in the foundation's best interests to cast its vote in
some other way, then nothing, not even whatever the majority opinion of
this list happens to be today, should prevent you from exercising your
own best judgment. I fully support your ability to cast a properly
considered vote on behalf of the ASF, whatever that vote may be.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> How could I not be? I've been involved w/ most of them.
>
I guess it's because you keep asking the same question
and despite people providing reasons and rationales
(which you may not agree with, which is fine of course),
you still don't seem to understand the PoV.
You buy a new car. You notice that when you drive
on the highway, you hear wind-noise from the windows.
But you accept that. Then after a while, you notice
that the steering wheel shakes a lot when you get
up to highway speed. The car dealer gives you no
satisfaction about "fixing" the steering wheel
problem. Even though the wind-noise issue and the
steering wheel issue aren't "connected", they can
certainly been seen as representative of the fit and
finish of the car, and, assuming you still feel taken
advantage of (or ignored by) the dealer about the
steering wheel issue, you will start also no longer
accepting the wind-noise problem ("And by the way,
the car is LOUD when I reach 60mph...").
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand - a "no" vote for the reason that we don't
>>>> believe Sun should be a spec lead because of their breach of the
>>>> JSPA is far more defensible and rational than we're pondering
>>>> our policy navel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason for the policy navel gazing is specifically because of
>>> our lack of "trust" in Sun, as evidenced by events and issues
>>> leading up to this point.
>>
>> No. I can't see how you can make that connection. The "no NDA"
>> is about "Apache Principles". The "no closed spec creation" is
>> about "Apache Principles".
>>
>> I assume those principles would stand if we trusted Sun.
>>
>
> Geir, all this does not occur in a vacuum. You are not seeing
> the connections and connotations which have *brought* us
> to this point. Everything is being looked at with past
> history and experience "coloring" that vision.
How could I not be? I've been involved w/ most of them.
The NDA issue isn't about trusting Sun, is it?
We have good reason not to trust Sun. But I think of the JCP as
something bigger than Sun, the bug of the JSPA notwithstanding.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You misunderstand - a "no" vote for the reason that we don't
>>> believe Sun should be a spec lead because of their breach of the
>>> JSPA is far more defensible and rational than we're pondering our
>>> policy navel.
>>>
>>
>> The reason for the policy navel gazing is specifically because of
>> our lack of "trust" in Sun, as evidenced by events and issues
>> leading up to this point.
>
> No. I can't see how you can make that connection. The "no NDA" is
> about "Apache Principles". The "no closed spec creation" is about
> "Apache Principles".
>
> I assume those principles would stand if we trusted Sun.
>
Geir, all this does not occur in a vacuum. You are not seeing
the connections and connotations which have *brought* us
to this point. Everything is being looked at with past
history and experience "coloring" that vision.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> You misunderstand - a "no" vote for the reason that we don't
>> believe Sun should be a spec lead because of their breach of the
>> JSPA is far more defensible and rational than we're pondering our
>> policy navel.
>>
>
> The reason for the policy navel gazing is specifically because of
> our lack of "trust" in Sun, as evidenced by events and issues
> leading up to this point.
No. I can't see how you can make that connection. The "no NDA" is
about "Apache Principles". The "no closed spec creation" is about
"Apache Principles".
I assume those principles would stand if we trusted Sun.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> You misunderstand - a "no" vote for the reason that we don't
> believe Sun should be a spec lead because of their breach of the
> JSPA is far more defensible and rational than we're pondering our
> policy navel.
>
The reason for the policy navel gazing is specifically because of
our lack of "trust" in Sun, as evidenced by events and issues
leading up to this point.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
>
>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>>
>> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>>
>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed
>> by Sun,
>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
>
> Well, as this is the *kick-off* vote, going nuclear right from the
> get-go might be the wrong message. We can still vote NO on the final
> resolution (which seems to be sometime Q4 '08) and we might even be
> able
> to rally up a few more supporters from the EG.
>
> I'm with Geir here. We did make a statement by not saying "Yes" but
> there is no reason to annoy everyone besides Sun right at the start.
You misunderstand - a "no" vote for the reason that we don't believe
Sun should be a spec lead because of their breach of the JSPA is far
more defensible and rational than we're pondering our policy navel.
geir
>
> To stretch your metaphor a bit more: You do not play chess with a
> bully.
> And ATM IMHO chess is needed, not BFT.
>
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:57 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
>
>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>>
>> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>>
>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed
>> by Sun,
>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
>
> Well, as this is the *kick-off* vote, going nuclear right from the
> get-go might be the wrong message. We can still vote NO on the final
> resolution (which seems to be sometime Q4 '08) and we might even be
> able
> to rally up a few more supporters from the EG.
Excuse me, but how the hell can a NO vote by us on this issue be
considered going nuclear? The "kick-off" vote is when the EC decides
who gets to be spec-lead. This is the only vote in which this specific
objection is truly applicable (all other votes are too late -- it is
nearly impossible to change the spec lead once the JSR is approved
to start, and such a change vote is vetoable by Sun in any case).
All we are doing is making the faintest of in-process objections.
Going nuclear would be to do what we told Sun we would do if they
did not agree to our original requirements: resign from the EC,
start our own (neutral) standards forum, and burn the JCP to the
ground. It is absolutely pathetic that we are allowing Sun to
dictate the terms on "standards" in which Apache provides
significant intellectual input and almost all the legitimacy.
Obviously, it is too late now for this vote, but we need to get our
heads out of the sand before the next one.
> I'm with Geir here. We did make a statement by not saying "Yes" but
> there is no reason to annoy everyone besides Sun right at the start.
Yes there is -- Sun can ignore us until a majority opposes them.
The only way that is going to happen is if we lead.
> To stretch your metaphor a bit more: You do not play chess with a
> bully.
> And ATM IMHO chess is needed, not BFT.
Apparently you missed the last seven years of chess. If we don't
show a little backbone here, then all we are doing is organizing
free labor for the sole benefit of a for-profit corporation.
I would not have allowed that while I was on the ASF board.
....Roy
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding schrieb:
>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>
> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>
> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed by Sun,
> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
Well, as this is the *kick-off* vote, going nuclear right from the
get-go might be the wrong message. We can still vote NO on the final
resolution (which seems to be sometime Q4 '08) and we might even be able
to rally up a few more supporters from the EG.
I'm with Geir here. We did make a statement by not saying "Yes" but
there is no reason to annoy everyone besides Sun right at the start.
To stretch your metaphor a bit more: You do not play chess with a bully.
And ATM IMHO chess is needed, not BFT.
Best regards
Henning
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>>>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>>>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
>>>> backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line
>>>> reason that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best
>>>> advice on what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>>>
>>>> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
>>>> happy about it.
>>>>
>>>> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
>>>> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
>>>> project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
>>>> responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not
>>>> a statement about the technology."
>>>>
>>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>>>
>>> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
>>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
>>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
>>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
>>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>>>
>>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed by Sun,
>>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
>>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
>>
>> That's what I said earlier. No one but you seems to agree, though.
>>
>
> Huh? People agreed with not voting Yes; people varied on whether
> it should be a No or an Abstain, and people worried about the
> wording/rationale to provide a clear basis for the reason
> for the vote without causing you or the ASF any undue and
> unwarranted backlash. I am quite comfortable with us
> using either statement, since both are true, both are
> valid reasons and both are simple shades of the same
> color.
I would have voted Yes, but was OK with abstain. IMO voting No at this
point on this JSR would have been wrong.
Given that Geir had ascertained that there would be no FOU restriction
on this JSR - voting Yes would have been a continuation of existing policy.
Voting No is effectively implementing a new policy, which would have
been premature since this debate is about formulating that policy and
has not yet been agreed.
I share some of the concerns expressed by Craig. Some of the things
being discussed potentially impact many projects/stakeholders here at
Apache and I would hope that there would be a "heads up" to those/all
projects before voting/implementing a policy that might torpedo some of
them.
Niall
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to
>>> me that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for
>>> a reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to
>>> have backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-
>>> line reason that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you
>>> my best advice on what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>>
>>> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
>>> happy about it.
>>>
>>> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
>>> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
>>> project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
>>> responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not a statement about the technology."
>>>
>>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>>
>> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
>> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
>> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
>> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
>> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>>
>> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed
>> by Sun,
>> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
>> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
>
> That's what I said earlier. No one but you seems to agree, though.
>
Huh? People agreed with not voting Yes; people varied on whether
it should be a No or an Abstain, and people worried about the
wording/rationale to provide a clear basis for the reason
for the vote without causing you or the ASF any undue and
unwarranted backlash. I am quite comfortable with us
using either statement, since both are true, both are
valid reasons and both are simple shades of the same
color.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
>> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
>> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to
>> have backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-
>> line reason that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you
>> my best advice on what to do, but didn't get very far.
>>
>> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
>> happy about it.
>>
>> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
>> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
>> project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
>> responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not a statement about the technology."
>>
>> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
>
> I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
> the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
> The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
> to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
> them in the balls in response to their bullying.
>
> The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed by
> Sun,
> with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
> being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
That's what I said earlier. No one but you seems to agree, though.
This is deciding to go "all in" on this issue, though. I had
pictured a different strategy - one involving the EC at the next
meeting (aug).
geir
>
> Kick em hard, where it hurts, and don't stop until they agree to be
> held up to their own rules. There is no reason for us to continue
> this farce of a Java Community Process when the community doesn't
> adhere to the process.
>
> ....Roy
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
> that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
> reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to
> have backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line
> reason that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best
> advice on what to do, but didn't get very far.
>
> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
> happy about it.
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
> project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
> responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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.
> This is not a statement about the technology."
>
> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
I don't think that is enough. When a bully starts kicking you around
the yard, you don't get anywhere by making speeches about policy.
The right thing to do is remind the bully that there is a downside
to being a bully: nobody is going to complain when you start kicking
them in the balls in response to their bullying.
The right thing, in this case, is to vote NO on any JSR proposed by Sun,
with a comment to the effect that the ASF cannot support any JSR
being run by any company that refuses to adhere to the JSPA.
Kick em hard, where it hurts, and don't stop until they agree to be
held up to their own rules. There is no reason for us to continue
this farce of a Java Community Process when the community doesn't
adhere to the process.
....Roy
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me that
> the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a reason. We
> had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have backed away
> from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason that actually
> makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice on what to do, but
> didn't get very far.
>
> I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that happy
> about it.
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
> terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
> open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not a statement about the technology."
>
> I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
Sorry - I have been flying all day or would have got involved in this
thread sooner.
To summarize my thoughts on this:
A FOU restriction would prevent Apache from releasing Tomcat 7 (or
whatever we call the version that implements the Servlet 3.0 spec)
under AL2. This would be a big problem. But, we have been given
assurances that there will be no FOU restriction. Maybe I am being too
trusting but I am happy to take the spec lead at his word on this but
I am also ready to kick up a huge stink if he goes back on this.
Further, statements have been made that the EG will work in an open
manner where possible. As someone pointed out earlier (sorry I forget
who) every Apache PMC has a private list. Why should we expect the EG
to be any different?
A TCK that comes with an NDA isn't ideal but also does not stop us
doing what the Apache Tomcat project exists to do. We have lived with
NDAs in the past and I don't see why we can't continue to live with
them whilst urging EGs to move away from them.
The EG is moving in the right direction and operating in a more open
manner than previously. This is good and further moves in this
direction should be encouraged. We can best do this, as we have been
doing, from inside the EG.
As I see it the arguments against a yes are:
1) A broader issue with the JCP and Sun not sticking to the terms of
the JSPA.
2) A TCK that requires an NDA.
It is right to mention our concerns about 1). 2) should be something
we continue to push for via our participatian in the EG.
Given that this is the "We think that improving the servlet spec is a
good idea" vote, it surprises me that none of the discussion in this
thread has been about the topic of the vote. Assuming that there is
concensus that improving the servlet spec is a good idea then I see no
reason not to vote yes, but with reservations regarding the process.
On this basis, I would suggest the following alternative wording:
The ASF supports further improvements to the servlet specification and
therefore votes for this JSR. However, the ASF has serious
reservations about how the JCP operates following Sun's refusal to
provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under terms complaint
with the JSPA. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's open Letter on
this subject, the ASF is currently in the process of formulating a new
policy towards the JCP (see jcp-open@apache.org) and the ASF's
participation in this, other current, and all future JSRs, will be
guided by this policy.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
This clearly isn't one of our finest moments. It's apparent to me
that the group wants to avoid voting yes, and is searching for a
reason. We had a lot of +1s for reasons that even sam seems to have
backed away from, and we aren't going to go with the hard-line reason
that actually makes logical sense to me. I gave you my best advice
on what to do, but didn't get very far.
I'll go with the following, and I'll defend it, but I'm not that
happy about it.
"The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony
project under terms complaint with the JSPA. Since Sun has not
responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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. This is not a
statement about the technology."
I have until midnight to change if we want to do something else.
geir
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Well, then, say that. Don't invent other things, or ask them to
> use a time-machine to know what we want.
>
> geir
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> There were two reasons given not to vote yes :
>>>
>>> 1) we wanted to demand that they do everything in public. I
>>> think we've
>>> since backed down from that.
>>>
>>> 2) we wanted to demand that they have no NDAs for the TCK. I
>>> think that
>>> this is unreasonable w/o prior warning.
>>
>> 3) We have no faith that their statement of no-FOU-restrictions
>> (or other
>> unacceptable additional terms) will be honored based on prior
>> conduct.
>>
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Well, then, say that. Don't invent other things, or ask them to use
a time-machine to know what we want.
geir
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> There were two reasons given not to vote yes :
>>
>> 1) we wanted to demand that they do everything in public. I think
>> we've
>> since backed down from that.
>>
>> 2) we wanted to demand that they have no NDAs for the TCK. I
>> think that
>> this is unreasonable w/o prior warning.
>
> 3) We have no faith that their statement of no-FOU-restrictions (or
> other
> unacceptable additional terms) will be honored based on prior
> conduct.
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> There were two reasons given not to vote yes :
>
> 1) we wanted to demand that they do everything in public. I think we've
> since backed down from that.
>
> 2) we wanted to demand that they have no NDAs for the TCK. I think that
> this is unreasonable w/o prior warning.
3) We have no faith that their statement of no-FOU-restrictions (or other
unacceptable additional terms) will be honored based on prior conduct.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
There were two reasons given not to vote yes :
1) we wanted to demand that they do everything in public. I think
we've since backed down from that.
2) we wanted to demand that they have no NDAs for the TCK. I think
that this is unreasonable w/o prior warning.
I've given a good reason to vote no, but no one has bitten on that.
geir
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The votes today, isn't it?
>
> Yeah, we should continue the discussion, of course,
> but if there isn't consensus I'm assuming the vote
> won't be a Yes...
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I was hoping we could finish the discussion, actually...
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, Geir said:
>>>
>>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on
>>> behalf of
>>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>>>
>>> I've seen objections. So I'm assuming that we will NOT
>>> be voting Yes.
>>
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
The votes today, isn't it?
Yeah, we should continue the discussion, of course,
but if there isn't consensus I'm assuming the vote
won't be a Yes...
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I was hoping we could finish the discussion, actually...
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> In any case, Geir said:
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on
>> behalf of
>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>>
>> I've seen objections. So I'm assuming that we will NOT
>> be voting Yes.
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I was hoping we could finish the discussion, actually...
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In any case, Geir said:
>
> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>
> I've seen objections. So I'm assuming that we will NOT
> be voting Yes.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
In any case, Geir said:
Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
Apache for this JSR. (today)
I've seen objections. So I'm assuming that we will NOT
be voting Yes.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> +1. Voting NO only to force them to be open is obstructionist. Leaving
> such an EC is a much stronger statement.
Do you mean EG (Expert Group) instead of EC (Executive Committee)? =P
Gotta love these acronyms. -- justin
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> 4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
>> future votes for that JSR.
>>
>> This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
>
> I'm with you up until #4 as I don't see how that's a suitable stick to
> force them to play nice. Can we withdraw support for the EG at a
> later point if they don't adhere to making the technical decisions on
> the public list? That could be something at the EC level or simply
> withdrawing our representation and go off on our own path. -- justin
+1. Voting NO only to force them to be open is obstructionist. Leaving
such an EC is a much stronger statement.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I think that we should :
>
> 1) note our support for working in the open (it's like "the Apache Way")
> 2) in our vote, also note that we expect them to do technical work in
> public
> 3) we will have people on that EG -> let *them* report back to us if
> the EG is doing technical development in public (and see if the EG is
> reacting to ASF representation urging them to do the tech work in
> public).
> 4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
> future votes for that JSR.
>
> This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
I'm with you up until #4 as I don't see how that's a suitable stick to
force them to play nice. Can we withdraw support for the EG at a
later point if they don't adhere to making the technical decisions on
the public list? That could be something at the EC level or simply
withdrawing our representation and go off on our own path. -- justin
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> > On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0),
>> confirmed
>> >> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>> >>
>> >> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on
>> behalf of
>> >> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>> >
>> > Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of
>> this JSR
>> > require a private mailing list?
>> >
>> > If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
>> 'unknown',
>> > then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing
>> list to
>> > do so too.
>>
>> I've pondered this for a few more minutes, and I think it's
>> unreasonable to expect that the JCP EGs can work w/o any private
>> list, when our own projects don't work without a private list.
>>
>> Clearly, if we're going to drive "the Apache Way" (whatever the hell
>> that is...) into the JCP EGs working behavior, this can't be by vague
>> fiat.
>>
>> The servlet JSR has a public list, and a private list. I think that
>> the real question is how that private list will be used.
>>
>> I think that we should :
>>
>> 1) note our support for working in the open (it's like "the Apache
>> Way")
>> 2) in our vote, also note that we expect them to do technical work in
>> public
>> 3) we will have people on that EG -> let *them* report back to us if
>> the EG is doing technical development in public (and see if the EG is
>> reacting to ASF representation urging them to do the tech work in
>> public).
>> 4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
>> future votes for that JSR.
>>
>> This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
>
> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
> point.
>
> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more closely:
>
> "We will leverage the collaborative tools provided by the java.net
> infrastructure. We have established the "servlet-spec-public" project
> on java.net. Therein, we will have a public issue tracker for tracking
> most issues. Any issues that absolutely must be EG private will be
> handled with a separate EG-private issue tracker. We will have an
> EG-private mailing list. The reference implementation will be
> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
> progress."
>
> A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
> reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any concerns?
Nope. Once they did glassfish, it was game-over for Tomcat as the
RI. Maybe you missed that whole brouhaha? :)
>
> Second, this proposal indicates that they will operate mostly in the
> public, except for the TCK. So that isn't the biggest concern.
Right - they are going to write the TCK themselves. If they wrote it
in public with community help, they couldn't whine how expensive it
us to be the Java EE spec lead, and therefore justify the license fees.
>
> Our biggest concern should be over TCKs, both in terms of FOU and NDA.
Agreed, which is why I pushed back. We can hold them to the implicit
commitment of transparency :
"Any issues that absolutely must be EG private will be handled with a
separate EG-private issue tracker. We will have an EG-private mailing
list."
where our representatives get to be the judge of "must".
We have the commitment for no FOU. The remaining thing is the NDA
for the TCK, which - despite my opinion and our agreement of what the
ASF should do re them - I do have reservations in us trying to tell
them how to license. Why? Our messaging around the Java SE TCK
debate has been that we're sticking to the letter of the agreement -
we're not asking for anything that we haven't already agreed to, and
that Sun hasn't agreed to. For example, people tried to confuse the
issue w/ us asking for the TCK as open source, which has nothing to
do w/ the Java SE TCK. We're not - we're asking that Sun stick to
the deal.
Now, we've worked long to support open-ness in how EGs operate, so
encouraging transparency and voting based on transparency is easily
defendable as part of our work over the years. But no NDA for TCK?
That's out of the blue.
I'd be happy to make it clear in our vote comment that we believe
that TCKs should be available w/o NDA, and will consider this a major
factor in the final vote for the JSR.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:35 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> > A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
>> > reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any
>> concerns?
>> >
>>
>> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
>> then this could be a major concern, imo.
>
> On this point, I'm very happy for Tomcat to be forced to compete on
> the merits rather than being anointed as the 'reference
> implementation'. We have nothing to fear about our ability to produce
> compliant products operating under our community dynamics. Embrace
> Darwin. -- justin
+1
Andrus
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/2/07, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
> > reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any concerns?
> >
>
> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
> then this could be a major concern, imo.
On this point, I'm very happy for Tomcat to be forced to compete on
the merits rather than being anointed as the 'reference
implementation'. We have nothing to fear about our ability to produce
compliant products operating under our community dynamics. Embrace
Darwin. -- justin
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> "But Dad, you've never asked me for the grades. As a matter of
>> fact, I overheard you and mom planning to decide about asking for
>> grades tomorrow..."
>>
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that the Open Letter did not,
> in fact, ask Sun "for the grades"??
Yes.
The open letter had nothing to do with forcing EGs to work in the
open, or force the spec lead to give us the TCk w/o an NDA. Those
were the two objections floated by Sam.
The open letter was about getting a TCK w/o an FOU, which they have
said would happen.
>
> I will repeat what Niall suggested:
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
> following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache
> Harmony project under open source friendly terms. Since Sun
> has not responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject,
> 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
> votes (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
>
> Sun's refusal has, imo, put us in a position where we
> need to formulate this policy. We have serious reservations
> and concerns about the current business as usual. As such,
> how can we vote Yes, which implies a continued
> acceptance of such business-as-usual?
Because the things that are problematic - Sun's behavior as a spec
lead - has nothing to do with the policy changes. We could have the
no NDA and no private list policy, and sun could *still* give us a
TCK license w/ FOU limitations.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> "But Dad, you've never asked me for the grades. As a matter of
> fact, I overheard you and mom planning to decide about asking for
> grades tomorrow..."
>
Are you honestly suggesting that the Open Letter did not,
in fact, ask Sun "for the grades"??
I will repeat what Niall suggested:
"The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates
following Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache
Harmony project under open source friendly terms. Since Sun
has not responded to the ASF's open Letter on this subject,
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
votes (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
Sun's refusal has, imo, put us in a position where we
need to formulate this policy. We have serious reservations
and concerns about the current business as usual. As such,
how can we vote Yes, which implies a continued
acceptance of such business-as-usual?
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
>>>> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
>>>> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Quite honestly because the power and usefulness of the statement
> is significantly reduced by voting Yes.
>
> "Bobby, your mom and I have serious reservations about how well
> you are doing in school following your refusal to provide us
> with your grades."
"But Dad, you've never asked me for the grades. As a matter of fact,
I overheard you and mom planning to decide about asking for grades
tomorrow..."
> You have not responded to our requests about
> this subject and therefore your mom and I are currently in the
> process of formulating a new policy towards your school work
> and your curfew. Since the policy has not yet been finalized we
> reluctantly vote (yes|no|abstain) at this time on whether you
> can go to Timmy's party."
"But Dad, you didn't ask about grades before. You did ask if I smoke
in the future, and I said I wouldn't. "
>
> Which vote would be more consistent with the intent
> of the statement?
I think that Dad shouldn't be voting if that's the basis for the
decision.
>
>>>
>>>> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more
>>>> closely:
>>>>
>>>> "... The reference implementation will be
>>>> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
>>>> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
>>>> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
>>>> progress."
>>>>
>>>> A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
>>>> reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any
>>>> concerns?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
>>> then this could be a major concern, imo.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> define: entirely
> "without any others being included or involved"
Why is it a major concern to the ASF how the RI for a spec we aren't
leading is developed? (and one that we want to vote "NO" on...)
They took their marbles and went home. They were free to do that.
Why would the ASF get upset? Sun's way of doing open source is
different than ours. I can't see why we'd have an official opinion.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
>>> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
>>> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
>>> point.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Why?
>
Quite honestly because the power and usefulness of the statement
is significantly reduced by voting Yes.
"Bobby, your mom and I have serious reservations about how well
you are doing in school following your refusal to provide us
with your grades. You have not responded to our requests about
this subject and therefore your mom and I are currently in the
process of formulating a new policy towards your school work
and your curfew. Since the policy has not yet been finalized we
reluctantly vote (yes|no|abstain) at this time on whether you
can go to Timmy's party."
Which vote would be more consistent with the intent
of the statement?
>>
>>> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more
>>> closely:
>>>
>>> "... The reference implementation will be
>>> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
>>> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
>>> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
>>> progress."
>>>
>>> A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
>>> reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any
>>> concerns?
>>>
>>
>> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
>> then this could be a major concern, imo.
>
> Why?
>
define: entirely
"without any others being included or involved"
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>
>> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
>> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
>> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
>> point.
>>
>
> Agreed.
Why?
>
>> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more
>> closely:
>>
>> "... The reference implementation will be
>> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
>> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
>> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
>> progress."
>>
>> A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
>> reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any concerns?
>>
>
> Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
> then this could be a major concern, imo.
Why?
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
> Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
> still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
> point.
>
Agreed.
> Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more closely:
>
> "... The reference implementation will be
> developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
> TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
> Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
> progress."
>
> A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
> reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any concerns?
>
Depending on the usage of "entirely" that they have in mind,
then this could be a major concern, imo.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
> >> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
> >>
> >> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
> >> Apache for this JSR. (today)
> >
> > Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> > require a private mailing list?
> >
> > If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> > then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> > do so too.
>
> I've pondered this for a few more minutes, and I think it's
> unreasonable to expect that the JCP EGs can work w/o any private
> list, when our own projects don't work without a private list.
>
> Clearly, if we're going to drive "the Apache Way" (whatever the hell
> that is...) into the JCP EGs working behavior, this can't be by vague
> fiat.
>
> The servlet JSR has a public list, and a private list. I think that
> the real question is how that private list will be used.
>
> I think that we should :
>
> 1) note our support for working in the open (it's like "the Apache Way")
> 2) in our vote, also note that we expect them to do technical work in
> public
> 3) we will have people on that EG -> let *them* report back to us if
> the EG is doing technical development in public (and see if the EG is
> reacting to ASF representation urging them to do the tech work in
> public).
> 4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
> future votes for that JSR.
>
> This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
First, I believe that we should limit our comment to exactly what
Niall posted, nothing more, nothing less. Well, something less: I
still strongly feel that a YES vote is highly inappropriate at this
point.
Second, upon reading http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315 more closely:
"We will leverage the collaborative tools provided by the java.net
infrastructure. We have established the "servlet-spec-public" project
on java.net. Therein, we will have a public issue tracker for tracking
most issues. Any issues that absolutely must be EG private will be
handled with a separate EG-private issue tracker. We will have an
EG-private mailing list. The reference implementation will be
developed entirely in the public GlassFish project on java.net. The
TCK will be developed privately by Sun. We will leverage the Early
Draft feature of JCP 2.6 to allow the public to see the spec in
progress."
A few things to note. First, Apache Tomcat will no longer be the
reference implementation. Does that cause anybody here any concerns?
Second, this proposal indicates that they will operate mostly in the
public, except for the TCK. So that isn't the biggest concern.
Our biggest concern should be over TCKs, both in terms of FOU and NDA.
- Sam Ruby
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
>> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>>
>> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
>> Apache for this JSR. (today)
>
> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> require a private mailing list?
>
> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> do so too.
I've pondered this for a few more minutes, and I think it's
unreasonable to expect that the JCP EGs can work w/o any private
list, when our own projects don't work without a private list.
Clearly, if we're going to drive "the Apache Way" (whatever the hell
that is...) into the JCP EGs working behavior, this can't be by vague
fiat.
The servlet JSR has a public list, and a private list. I think that
the real question is how that private list will be used.
I think that we should :
1) note our support for working in the open (it's like "the Apache Way")
2) in our vote, also note that we expect them to do technical work in
public
3) we will have people on that EG -> let *them* report back to us if
the EG is doing technical development in public (and see if the EG is
reacting to ASF representation urging them to do the tech work in
public).
4) If they don't - if they do things in secret - we vote "no" on
future votes for that JSR.
This don't solve the NDA for TCK issue of course.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
>> require a private mailing list?
>>
>> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
>> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
>> do so too.
>
> I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> "business friendly" reputation will degenerate. We are not Stallman &
> Co, who has some altruistic, maybe even anarchistic, motives. I think
> ASF should continue to tread carefully, and notch JCP, companies and
> FSF in the "right direction" in small, small steps so that the
> continuum is maintained.
I agree with this statement.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Niclas Hedhman
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On 7/2/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2 things here...What do we do the the vote that is scheduled for
> servlet API today? I'd say we abstain.
That sounds reasonable, especially if it comes with an explanation of
the reservation, as expressed by Sam.
> Next, what do we do for the rest of the jcp related work? that's the
> policy we need to discuss and reach consensus on on the other threads.
Sounds good to me.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
2 things here...What do we do the the vote that is scheduled for
servlet API today? I'd say we abstain.
Next, what do we do for the rest of the jcp related work? that's the
policy we need to discuss and reach consensus on on the other threads.
thanks,
dims
On 7/2/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> > require a private mailing list?
> >
> > If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> > then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> > do so too.
>
> I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> "business friendly" reputation will degenerate. We are not Stallman &
> Co, who has some altruistic, maybe even anarchistic, motives. I think
> ASF should continue to tread carefully, and notch JCP, companies and
> FSF in the "right direction" in small, small steps so that the
> continuum is maintained.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Niclas Hedhman
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/2/07, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> > require a private mailing list?
> >
> > If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> > then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> > do so too.
>
> I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> "business friendly" reputation will degenerate. We are not Stallman &
> Co, who has some altruistic, maybe even anarchistic, motives. I think
> ASF should continue to tread carefully, and notch JCP, companies and
> FSF in the "right direction" in small, small steps so that the
> continuum is maintained.
There is business friendly as in "No Discrimination Against Persons or
Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", and then
there is business friendly as an "Non-Disclosure Agreements" and
"Field of Use" Restrictions.
In order to achieve the former, it is high time that we stop
supporting the latter.
- Sam Ruby
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really
>>>> don't. But I just want to have a framework. We've asked for
>>>> confirmation that there would be no FOU and we got it.
>>>>
>>>> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a
>>>> policy we have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the alternative is to vote Yes? This makes no sense to me.
>>
>> We haven't set the standard externally what would make us not vote
>> yes, because we don't have it internally.
>>
>> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final
>> vote. That's 18 months away.
>>
>> We'd be saying "no, we don't think this JSR should even start,
>> because you haven't satisfied our previously unstated requirements
>> about how we think that EGs will work in public, and how our yet-
>> as-undecided policy towards NDAs will play out..."
>>
>
> Well, they haven't satisfied anything regarding our stated issues as
> per the open letter either... I would suggest that our Abstain/No
> vote would be more consistent as well as a clear indication that
> premature is not better.
I'd rather send a clear NO ["We don't think Sun should be a spec lead
for any new JSRs until we resolve the Java SE TCK issue" ] rather
than an abstain because we're debating policy.
>
>>>
>>>> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're
>>>> going to reject JSRs ahead of time.
>>>>
>>>> How about this :
>>>>
>>>> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available
>>>> and the spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public,
>>>> we'll vote no on following votes. Then, once the policy is
>>>> clear and stated, we make the announcement to the JCP, and base
>>>> all votes on those terms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. I think we should vote Abstain or No. Without
>>> this, I fear that we will never feel compelled to drive a
>>> "clear and stated" policy.
>>>
>>
>> Why? We're in the middle of developing that 'clear and stated'
>> policy. There's no question we'll have it. But do you really
>> want to tell the EG that the need to conform to policy we'll
>> create tomorrow?
>>
>
> "There's no question we'll have it".
>
> I feel that not everyone shares your confidence in that :)
Funny, that. Shouldn't result in forcing a vote, IMO, when
conversation is still so "frothy" :)
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really
>>> don't. But I just want to have a framework. We've asked for
>>> confirmation that there would be no FOU and we got it.
>>>
>>> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy
>>> we have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>>>
>>
>> So the alternative is to vote Yes? This makes no sense to me.
>
> We haven't set the standard externally what would make us not vote
> yes, because we don't have it internally.
>
> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final
> vote. That's 18 months away.
>
> We'd be saying "no, we don't think this JSR should even start,
> because you haven't satisfied our previously unstated requirements
> about how we think that EGs will work in public, and how our yet-as-
> undecided policy towards NDAs will play out..."
>
Well, they haven't satisfied anything regarding our stated issues as
per the open letter either... I would suggest that our Abstain/No
vote would be more consistent as well as a clear indication that
premature is not better.
>>
>>> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going
>>> to reject JSRs ahead of time.
>>>
>>> How about this :
>>>
>>> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available
>>> and the spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll
>>> vote no on following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and
>>> stated, we make the announcement to the JCP, and base all votes
>>> on those terms.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. I think we should vote Abstain or No. Without
>> this, I fear that we will never feel compelled to drive a
>> "clear and stated" policy.
>>
>
> Why? We're in the middle of developing that 'clear and stated'
> policy. There's no question we'll have it. But do you really want
> to tell the EG that the need to conform to policy we'll create
> tomorrow?
>
"There's no question we'll have it".
I feel that not everyone shares your confidence in that :)
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> Why? We're in the middle of developing that 'clear and stated' policy.
> There's no question we'll have it. But do you really want to tell the
> EG that the need to conform to policy we'll create tomorrow?
Yes. I think we need to do exactly that. Not in terms of a NO vote,
but certainly Abstain for today.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 13:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final vote.
> That's 18 months away.
A bit unrelated, minor nit here, but it could help us to emphasize our
influence on that JSR:
Under contributions, change
Shale --> Apache Shale
Struts --> Apache Struts
Wicket --> Apache Wicket
Four out of eight JCP/Sun external contributions come out of the ASF. We
might want to make this more visible.
Best regards
Henning
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final vote.
>> That's 18 months away.
>
> Can you please back up and provide us JCP-ignoramuses with the context
> of what this vote means and what our options are. Voting 'yes' means
> that we approve for this EG to start working? Are there any other
> votes that we'll have along the way?
Yes, this is the "We think that improving the servlet spec is a good
idea" vote.
After this, there is a "community draft" ballot (a checkpoint on how
we think things are going) and then a final approval ballot.
>
>> We'd be saying "no, we don't think this JSR should even start,
>> because you haven't satisfied our previously unstated requirements
>> about how we think that EGs will work in public, and how our yet-as-
>> undecided policy towards NDAs will play out..."
>
> I totally grok that. Hence, I'd either recommend 'yes' or 'abstain' -
> probably leaning towards abstaining for *all* votes until we have the
> policy hashed out. -- justin
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final vote.
>> That's 18 months away.
>
> Can you please back up and provide us JCP-ignoramuses with the context
> of what this vote means and what our options are. Voting 'yes' means
> that we approve for this EG to start working? Are there any other
> votes that we'll have along the way?
Think in terms of incubator vote-to-accept-a-new-podling. No?
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final vote.
> That's 18 months away.
Can you please back up and provide us JCP-ignoramuses with the context
of what this vote means and what our options are. Voting 'yes' means
that we approve for this EG to start working? Are there any other
votes that we'll have along the way?
> We'd be saying "no, we don't think this JSR should even start,
> because you haven't satisfied our previously unstated requirements
> about how we think that EGs will work in public, and how our yet-as-
> undecided policy towards NDAs will play out..."
I totally grok that. Hence, I'd either recommend 'yes' or 'abstain' -
probably leaning towards abstaining for *all* votes until we have the
policy hashed out. -- justin
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really
>> don't. But I just want to have a framework. We've asked for
>> confirmation that there would be no FOU and we got it.
>>
>> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy
>> we have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>>
>
> So the alternative is to vote Yes? This makes no sense to me.
We haven't set the standard externally what would make us not vote
yes, because we don't have it internally.
This is only the kickoff vote for the JSR. It isn't the final vote.
That's 18 months away.
We'd be saying "no, we don't think this JSR should even start,
because you haven't satisfied our previously unstated requirements
about how we think that EGs will work in public, and how our yet-as-
undecided policy towards NDAs will play out..."
>
>> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going
>> to reject JSRs ahead of time.
>>
>> How about this :
>>
>> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available
>> and the spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll
>> vote no on following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and
>> stated, we make the announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on
>> those terms.
>>
>
> I disagree. I think we should vote Abstain or No. Without
> this, I fear that we will never feel compelled to drive a
> "clear and stated" policy.
>
Why? We're in the middle of developing that 'clear and stated'
policy. There's no question we'll have it. But do you really want
to tell the EG that the need to conform to policy we'll create tomorrow?
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really
> don't. But I just want to have a framework. We've asked for
> confirmation that there would be no FOU and we got it.
>
> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy
> we have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>
So the alternative is to vote Yes? This makes no sense to me.
> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going
> to reject JSRs ahead of time.
>
> How about this :
>
> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and
> the spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote
> no on following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated,
> we make the announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those
> terms.
>
I disagree. I think we should vote Abstain or No. Without
this, I fear that we will never feel compelled to drive a
"clear and stated" policy.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really don't. But
> I just want to have a framework. We've asked for confirmation that
> there would be no FOU and we got it.
>
> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
> have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>
> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
> reject JSRs ahead of time.
>
> How about this :
>
> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and the
> spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no on
> following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we make the
> announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
>
I agree with this tactic. However, before the no vote on following
votes, can we please get an official policy that we ratify before
altering our behaviour with other entities?
Jeff
> geir
>
>
>
>
>
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project
> under open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to
> the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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 votes (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
>
I like this.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Perfect. my 2 cents - with abstain.
-- dims
On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Niall Pemberton <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> > >>> >> require a private mailing list?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
> > >>> 'unknown',
> > >>> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> > >>> >> do so too.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> > >>> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> > >>> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> > >>> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
> > >>
> > >> Exactly.
> > >>
> > >> Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
> > >> 19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July. For context, here is the vote for
> > >> servlet 2.4:
> > >>
> > >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
> > >>
> > >> Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
> > >> neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote. Furthermore, by
> > >> issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
> > >> else to reconsider their votes. The latter is something we can work
> > >> on improving in the future.
> > >>
> > >> I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really don't. But
> > > I just want to have a framework. We've asked for confirmation that
> > > there would be no FOU and we got it.
> > >
> > > Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
> > > have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
> > >
> > > I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
> > > reject JSRs ahead of time.
> > >
> > > How about this :
> > >
> > > We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and the
> > > spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no on
> > > following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we make the
> > > announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
> >
> > Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about voting
> > with the following statement:
>
> +1
>
> > "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> > Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
> > open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
> > open Letter on this subject, 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 votes
> > (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
>
> +1
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/2/07, Niall Pemberton <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> >>> "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> >>> >> require a private mailing list?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
> >>> 'unknown',
> >>> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> >>> >> do so too.
> >>> >
> >>> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> >>> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> >>> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> >>> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
> >>>
> >>> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
> >> 19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July. For context, here is the vote for
> >> servlet 2.4:
> >>
> >> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
> >>
> >> Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
> >> neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote. Furthermore, by
> >> issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
> >> else to reconsider their votes. The latter is something we can work
> >> on improving in the future.
> >>
> >> I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
> >
> > I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really don't. But
> > I just want to have a framework. We've asked for confirmation that
> > there would be no FOU and we got it.
> >
> > Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
> > have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
> >
> > I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
> > reject JSRs ahead of time.
> >
> > How about this :
> >
> > We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and the
> > spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no on
> > following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we make the
> > announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
>
> Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about voting
> with the following statement:
+1
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
> open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
> open Letter on this subject, 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 votes
> (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
+1
- Sam Ruby
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about voting
I'd suggest "Abstain", ...
> with the following statement:
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
> open source friendly terms.
s/open source friendly terms/the terms of the JSPA and other agreements
between Sun and the ASF with respect to open source implementations/
> Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
> open Letter on this subject, the ASF is currently in the process of
> formulating a new policy towards the JCP (see jcp-open@apache.org) and
s/the JCP/participating in the JCP/
> all future JSRs will be evaluated in light of that policy. Since the
> policy has not yet been finalized the ASF reluctantly votes
> (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about
> voting with the following statement:
>
> "The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
> Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project
> under open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to
> the ASF's open Letter on this subject, 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 votes (yes|no|abstain) at this time."
>
++1.
If we felt compelled enough for an open letter, then certainly
we should feel compelled enough to actually follow through with
our concerns, and NOT voting Yes is a logical, expected
and, dare I say it, *correct* way of doing this.
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>> "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
>>>
>>> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
>>> >> require a private mailing list?
>>> >>
>>> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
>>> 'unknown',
>>> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
>>> >> do so too.
>>> >
>>> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
>>> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
>>> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
>>> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
>>>
>>> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
>> 19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July. For context, here is the vote for
>> servlet 2.4:
>>
>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
>>
>> Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
>> neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote. Furthermore, by
>> issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
>> else to reconsider their votes. The latter is something we can work
>> on improving in the future.
>>
>> I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
>
> I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really don't. But
> I just want to have a framework. We've asked for confirmation that
> there would be no FOU and we got it.
>
> Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
> have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
>
> I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
> reject JSRs ahead of time.
>
> How about this :
>
> We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and the
> spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no on
> following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we make the
> announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
Isn't this stating a policy that isn't yet decided, how about voting
with the following statement:
"The ASF has serious reservations about how the JCP operates following
Sun's refusal to provide the JCK to the Apache Harmony project under
open source friendly terms. Since Sun has not responded to the ASF's
open Letter on this subject, 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 votes
(yes|no|abstain) at this time."
Niall
> geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>> "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
>>
>> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of
>> this JSR
>> >> require a private mailing list?
>> >>
>> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or
>> 'unknown',
>> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing
>> list to
>> >> do so too.
>> >
>> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
>> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
>> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
>> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
>>
>> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
> 19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July. For context, here is the vote for
> servlet 2.4:
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
>
> Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
> neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote. Furthermore, by
> issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
> else to reconsider their votes. The latter is something we can work
> on improving in the future.
>
> I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
I wouldn't care if this is a veto or a swing vote. I really don't.
But I just want to have a framework. We've asked for confirmation
that there would be no FOU and we got it.
Now we want to vote no because they aren't conformant to a policy we
have yet to ratify, let alone agree on?
I'd rather we announce publicly the terms under which we're going to
reject JSRs ahead of time.
How about this :
We vote yes with the statement that unless the TCK is available and
the spec lead changes his mind and runs this in public, we'll vote no
on following votes. Then, once the policy is clear and stated, we
make the announcement to the JCP, and base all votes on those terms.
geir
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On 7/2/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> "Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
>
> > On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> >> require a private mailing list?
> >>
> >> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> >> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> >> do so too.
> >
> > I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> > not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> > small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> > "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
>
> It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote.
Exactly.
Per http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=315, this vote was put forward on
19th Jun, and closes today, 2 July. For context, here is the vote for
servlet 2.4:
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=812
Two take-aways: a single NO vote, registered on the last day is
neither a veto, nor is likely to be a swing vote. Furthermore, by
issuing the vote on the last day, we are unlikely to cause anybody
else to reconsider their votes. The latter is something we can work
on improving in the future.
I continue to advocate that we put forward a NO vote.
- Sam Ruby
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Niclas Hedhman" <ni...@hedhman.org> writes:
> On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
>> require a private mailing list?
>>
>> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
>> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
>> do so too.
>
> I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
> not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
> small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
> "business friendly" reputation will degenerate.
It's not an ultimatum, it's a vote. We haven't even gotten
to the point where we vote according to some strongly-held
principles, when we're still incapable of determining what's
in our own best interests.
I think asking a Sun spec lead to issue a statement on any
particular subject and expect that statement to be upheld
by a future Sun is simply putting interpersonal relationships
ahead of protecting one's own self interests.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> require a private mailing list?
>
> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> do so too.
I have no particular opinion of what stance to take if the above is
not fulfilled on this particular case, but I would like to raise a
small flag that if ASF makes too strong ultimatums, I think our
"business friendly" reputation will degenerate. We are not Stallman &
Co, who has some altruistic, maybe even anarchistic, motives. I think
ASF should continue to tread carefully, and notch JCP, companies and
FSF in the "right direction" in small, small steps so that the
continuum is maintained.
Thank you.
Niclas Hedhman
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Geir,
I agree with Sam on this.
thanks,
dims
On 7/2/07, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
> > that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
> >
> > Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
> > Apache for this JSR. (today)
>
> Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
> require a private mailing list?
>
> If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
> then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
> do so too.
>
> Why do I object? Well, I would like to see Tomcat continue at the
> ASF, and I would like (some version of) the draft changes I posted six
> weeks ago get ratified within 90 days of when the open letter was sent
> out (which by my count was 83 days ago now).
>
> I realize that I may not get what I want on either count, but I plan
> to keep pushing. And on the latter, I once again call on anybody who
> has any plans to write an alternate proposal to do so now, otherwise
> tomorrow I will call for a vote on my original draft.
>
> At some point we need to stop deliberating and actually take a stand.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>
> Unless there are any objections, I intend to vote "yes" on behalf of
> Apache for this JSR. (today)
Will NDAs be required to access to TCK? Will development of this JSR
require a private mailing list?
If the answer to either of the above two is either 'yes' or 'unknown',
then I VEHEMENTLY object, and call for others on this mailing list to
do so too.
Why do I object? Well, I would like to see Tomcat continue at the
ASF, and I would like (some version of) the draft changes I posted six
weeks ago get ratified within 90 days of when the open letter was sent
out (which by my count was 83 days ago now).
I realize that I may not get what I want on either count, but I plan
to keep pushing. And on the latter, I once again call on anybody who
has any plans to write an alternate proposal to do so now, otherwise
tomorrow I will call for a vote on my original draft.
At some point we need to stop deliberating and actually take a stand.
- Sam Ruby
Re: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
>> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
>
> How is this possible when JSR 315 calls out
>
> 2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or
> technologies:
>
> The specification would depend on JSR 175(A Metadata Facility for
> the JavaTM
> Programming Language) and hence J2SE 5.0.
>
> ---------------
>
> Isn't this an FoU by dependency?
>
No.
geir
Re: Fwd: servlet 3.0 (JSR-315)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Bill Shannon, spec lead for the new JSR-315 (servlet 3.0), confirmed
> that there will be no FOU restrictions for the TCK for this JSR.
How is this possible when JSR 315 calls out
2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:
The specification would depend on JSR 175(A Metadata Facility for the JavaTM
Programming Language) and hence J2SE 5.0.
---------------
Isn't this an FoU by dependency?