You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2005/12/14 21:22:41 UTC
thoughts on new site
I discovered the new site that was committed. It's a comprehensive start
for the user facing side - thanks!
I have some random thoughts:
- Is listing the private addresses appropriate on this page? There isn't
really a precedent for listing a members only list on a public page,
even if it is moderated, nor something like jcp-open that doesn't have a
public archive.
- would it be more appropriate to put this content under the asylum in
the long run? (not sure its necessary - just a thought)
Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to collaborate.
There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that would be
interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the ideal,
but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA) when the
spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the case here.
I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable solution
given the constraints.
2) I'd like to play around with adding content related to the below to
the site - but I don't want to put anything in that svn repo that isn't
decided on. Is this an appropriate forum for discussion or can we get
together and work through it?
There were also a bunch of points in previous emails that seemed to get
lost. I'd like to revisit as I didn't get any feedback.
Does it make sense to set up a PMC-like committee that can share some of
the responsibilities? I'm not exactly sure how the PRC is defined or
operates, but it might be similar. It seems to me that we should have
these lists:
- private. To be discussed only with those under NDA (not necessarily
members, if this is allowed - those that fit the 2 categories I listed
above)
- public. Only committers can subscribe, but a public archive
available. For discussing apache's process, participation and to provide
feedback on JSRs of interest. Kind of like legal-discuss. Would be good
to be as open as possible, without violating the trust of any EG's, so
members of the private group need to be prudent.
- jsrXXX-discuss. One per JSR where requested and multiple reps can't be on an EG. Only NDA'd individuals,
but so more Apache people can discuss individual JSRs even if only one
can be on an EG.
> * An EG representative should give quarterly reports to this list
The JCP VP is meant to report to the board in Feb, May, Aug, Nov, though
I'm not aware of whether this happens. Geir, can you shed some light on
this? Anyway, it seems the perfect opportunity to provide feedback and
issues, to the extent possible given that board reports go public after
some time.
Also some of Dain's suggestions:
Openness
> * Publicly document the process to join an EG
> * Publicly document the requirements of an person representing Apache
> * All administrative communication between Apache and the JCP should be
> copied to this (or the private) list
> * This list should discuss and vote to propose Apache sponsored
> specifications
> > Voting
> > * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how Apache
> > will cast it's vote
I agree with all these, though the part about administrative
communication might be a bit difficult - instead I think a summary of
important things (not resorting to the 3-monthly report) would be the
best way here.
Thoughts?
- Brett
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> I discovered the new site that was committed. It's a comprehensive start
>> for the user facing side - thanks!
>
> Yah - it's live on www to make it easier for people to see/read, but not
> linked yet. Seems like no major disasters in there, so I'll link it.
Could I kill the following page at Jakarta?
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html
and link over from Jakarta to the jcp site?
Hen
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> This was always an open list.
*sigh*
I don't know what "open" is supposed to mean. Even the recent page you
put up suggested that it was open to all committers, not the public.
I'm not particularly interested in arguing semantics, I've suggested it
be recreated identically to legal-discuss, but go ahead and do what you
want (or leave it as is and fix the archiving process). As long as the
documentation == intention == reality, I'm happy :)
>
> "next" as opposed to "this". In two months. Happy Holidays.
Thanks, that always catches me.
>
> Both. How it fits, and more importantly, what's the hangup. I hear
> that there's quite a bit of interesting politics there, but am not
> privy to the details, of course.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's the hangup". Anyway, I'll send you
a quick summary.
>
> Don't worry about board report this time unless there's something very
> urgent that you believe will require board action before the end of
> the year (which I would argue is pointless given most of the western
> world is shut down for the next two weeks.)
No, there's absolutely nothing urgent.
- Brett
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 18, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> * jcp-discuss@apache.org - only committers and their guests can
>>> subscribe, subscription is moderated, archives are public
>>> * jcp-internal@apache.org - members only list for discussion of
>>> Apache's
>>> involvement in the JCP, private archives
>>
>> That would work, although we could rename this to -discuss and leave
>> the other one alone. Doesn't matter that much on the latter.
> That's fine with me.
>
> The only question is whether to move the current list, or start again.
> Given that some have been under the impression that this would be an
> internal list, and there has been some growing pains and a few too
> many
> pre-coffee postings, it might be better to start over rather than toss
> the archives out to Google. For mine, I'm fine either way, but I'm not
> sure if everyone will feel the same.
This was always an open list.
>>
>> I'll probably ask for them for the next board meeting to give people
>> warning and the change.
> Ok. That's this Wednesday, right? That's not a lot of time, as I'd
> expect they'd want the report some time in advance?
"next" as opposed to "this". In two months. Happy Holidays.
>>
>> BTW, if you'd like to fill us in on the OSGi situation in 277, I'm
>> all
>> ears...
> Can you elaborate on what you see as the "OSGi situation"? Do you
> want a
> general overview of how OSGi fits with the JSR, or do you have a
> specific question or concern?
Both. How it fits, and more importantly, what's the hangup. I hear
that there's quite a bit of interesting politics there, but am not
privy to the details, of course.
> I'm not comfortable discussing any details of the JSR right now on a
> list that might be made public, because as it stands, everything is
> confidential. I can send you a private response, and will as part
> of my
> email to Stanley come up with an arrangement for what I can share as
> part of a board report.
Don't worry about board report this time unless there's something
very urgent that you believe will require board action before the end
of the year (which I would argue is pointless given most of the
western world is shut down for the next two weeks.)
Re the other, I'm personally interested, but if you think it has
broader interest, post that to jcp@ as well, so at least the
membership can review if they are interested...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> * jcp-discuss@apache.org - only committers and their guests can
>> subscribe, subscription is moderated, archives are public
>> * jcp-internal@apache.org - members only list for discussion of Apache's
>> involvement in the JCP, private archives
>
> That would work, although we could rename this to -discuss and leave
> the other one alone. Doesn't matter that much on the latter.
That's fine with me.
The only question is whether to move the current list, or start again.
Given that some have been under the impression that this would be an
internal list, and there has been some growing pains and a few too many
pre-coffee postings, it might be better to start over rather than toss
the archives out to Google. For mine, I'm fine either way, but I'm not
sure if everyone will feel the same.
>
> I'll probably ask for them for the next board meeting to give people
> warning and the change.
Ok. That's this Wednesday, right? That's not a lot of time, as I'd
expect they'd want the report some time in advance?
>
> BTW, if you'd like to fill us in on the OSGi situation in 277, I'm all
> ears...
Can you elaborate on what you see as the "OSGi situation"? Do you want a
general overview of how OSGi fits with the JSR, or do you have a
specific question or concern?
I'm not comfortable discussing any details of the JSR right now on a
list that might be made public, because as it stands, everything is
confidential. I can send you a private response, and will as part of my
email to Stanley come up with an arrangement for what I can share as
part of a board report.
- Brett
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 17, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> I have some random thoughts:
>>> - Is listing the private addresses appropriate on this page?
>>> There isn't
>>> really a precedent for listing a members only list on a public page,
>>> even if it is moderated, nor something like jcp-open that doesn't
>>> have a
>>> public archive.
>>
>> Addresses of the people representing us? I thought about this and
>> figured we could work it out. I see no issue if we use the apache id
>> of the reps. Is that what you meant?
>>
> No, I meant the jcp/jcp-open lists. I've heard previously some
> reluctance to list the members only addresses, svn locations, etc. on
> public sites. I don't have a personal problem with it, was just
> curious.
I can't see much harm other than confusion, nor much benefit though.
>>
>>> - would it be more appropriate to put this content under the
>>> asylum in
>>> the long run? (not sure its necessary - just a thought)
>>
>> Which content?
> Anything that we decide only needs to be available to committers (I
> told
> you these were random thoughts - nothing specific right now! :)
>> Sure. Actually, this is a fine way to do it. We can come to
>> conclusions from the ASF POV, and you can relay that message to
>> the EG.
> Yep, it should work.
>
>>
>> I think we have all of the above. There is a private members list,
>> this list which is public, and the jsrXXX-discuss is on it;s way for
>> 277 at least.
>>
> Well, there does seem to be a bit of confusion, especially surrounding
> the publicity of this list. Consistency is good, so how about we
> follow
> the legal-* lists as an example?
>
> * jcp-discuss@apache.org - only committers and their guests can
> subscribe, subscription is moderated, archives are public
> * jcp-internal@apache.org - members only list for discussion of
> Apache's
> involvement in the JCP, private archives
That would work, although we could rename this to -discuss and leave
the other one alone. Doesn't matter that much on the latter.
>> As for a PMC-like committee, this interest group is effectively it.
>> I'm glad to see the interest.
> Ok. I just wanted to align this to other ways of working that everyone
> is used to. But the steps being taken and current interest will
> help and
> hopefully take the natural course.
>
> Having looked into it more, it seems this is purely a board decision.
> JCP is like Legal in that it is an office reporting to the board,
> not a
> committee like security, PRC or infrastructure. I trust the board to
> know what they want :)
>
> My personal opinion (as a generality) is that its good to have a
> list of
> people committed to helping, who've proven they'll stick around, and
> with the burden of making decisions. It works well in PMCs.
>
> Your other mail reminded me of a concern I have though - that in your
> opinion it takes about a year to groom a new VP/EC rep. As I said
> earlier, I definitely agree that is something that we don't want to be
> doing regularly. However, there are a number of circumstances under
> which that might be necessary - what if the VP gets asked by their
> company to be their EC rep, or wants to stand themself as an
> individual?
> What if they get burned out from over volunteering? What if they
> get hit
> by a bus? (I was disturbed with the frequency with which my former
> boss
> used that expression about me - I always look both ways now :)
>
> I'm not saying any of those are imminent, and I trust that if they
> were
> you'd be taking the necessary action. But they also tend to sneak
> up so
> sharing the load can only be a good thing.
>>
>> Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps. I don't want to see
>> that the EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's
>> really out of scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are
>> interested, they should get on a jsrXXX list, to which the EG rep
>> might post a technical summary to those on the list, but I would
>> leave
>> that up to the group on the jsrXXX list, how they want to work.
> +1
>>
>> As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be doing
>> this month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
> Ok, I didn't notice it was only added in October. Is this a once off
> move to Dec, or will it move to that 3 monthly rotation?
>
> Is there any info you need from us before then? I really like the way
> Jakarta does their board reports, getting everyone to fill in their
> own
> pieces. If you would like to include the JSR heartbeats in this
> report,
> then editing a file in SVN seems like a good way to assemble the
> report
> and get feedback from the group in advance.
I'll probably ask for them for the next board meeting to give people
warning and the change.
BTW, if you'd like to fill us in on the OSGi situation in 277, I'm
all ears...
>>>
>>> I agree with all these, though the part about administrative
>>> communication might be a bit difficult - instead I think a
>>> summary of
>>> important things (not resorting to the 3-monthly report) would be
>>> the
>>> best way here.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I think that you'll find it isn't as interesting as you may suspect.
>> EG reps should throw exceptions for trouble they are having that they
>> want help with to this list (and a good thing to note on the page,
>> btw!), but historically we've had little problem. (What we have had
>> is me hearing about a problematic EG rep - this happened years ago -
>> but the JCP knows how to handle that...) I've been writing
>> summaries
>> of administrative things to this list now that I know that there's
>> interest, and encouraging people to bring their interest here (we
>> should see someone wanting to be on JSR-199) pop up here soon.
>>
> I'm not suggesting it would be interesting :) I agree we don't need to
> know everything, but I think some exposure to it is helpful in getting
> more people involved.
Well, it's here on this list from now on. Just keep reading.
>> I'd suggest we just iterate and improve as time goes on.
> +1
>
> Thanks Geir. Sorry we didn't have a greater opportunity to discuss
> this
> as a group at ApacheCon, though its good that everyone could be
> involved
> here.
Yep
geir
>
> - Brett
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I have some random thoughts:
>> - Is listing the private addresses appropriate on this page? There isn't
>> really a precedent for listing a members only list on a public page,
>> even if it is moderated, nor something like jcp-open that doesn't have a
>> public archive.
>
> Addresses of the people representing us? I thought about this and
> figured we could work it out. I see no issue if we use the apache id
> of the reps. Is that what you meant?
>
No, I meant the jcp/jcp-open lists. I've heard previously some
reluctance to list the members only addresses, svn locations, etc. on
public sites. I don't have a personal problem with it, was just curious.
>
>> - would it be more appropriate to put this content under the asylum in
>> the long run? (not sure its necessary - just a thought)
>
> Which content?
Anything that we decide only needs to be available to committers (I told
you these were random thoughts - nothing specific right now! :)
> Sure. Actually, this is a fine way to do it. We can come to
> conclusions from the ASF POV, and you can relay that message to the EG.
Yep, it should work.
>
> I think we have all of the above. There is a private members list,
> this list which is public, and the jsrXXX-discuss is on it;s way for
> 277 at least.
>
Well, there does seem to be a bit of confusion, especially surrounding
the publicity of this list. Consistency is good, so how about we follow
the legal-* lists as an example?
* jcp-discuss@apache.org - only committers and their guests can
subscribe, subscription is moderated, archives are public
* jcp-internal@apache.org - members only list for discussion of Apache's
involvement in the JCP, private archives
> As for a PMC-like committee, this interest group is effectively it.
> I'm glad to see the interest.
Ok. I just wanted to align this to other ways of working that everyone
is used to. But the steps being taken and current interest will help and
hopefully take the natural course.
Having looked into it more, it seems this is purely a board decision.
JCP is like Legal in that it is an office reporting to the board, not a
committee like security, PRC or infrastructure. I trust the board to
know what they want :)
My personal opinion (as a generality) is that its good to have a list of
people committed to helping, who've proven they'll stick around, and
with the burden of making decisions. It works well in PMCs.
Your other mail reminded me of a concern I have though - that in your
opinion it takes about a year to groom a new VP/EC rep. As I said
earlier, I definitely agree that is something that we don't want to be
doing regularly. However, there are a number of circumstances under
which that might be necessary - what if the VP gets asked by their
company to be their EC rep, or wants to stand themself as an individual?
What if they get burned out from over volunteering? What if they get hit
by a bus? (I was disturbed with the frequency with which my former boss
used that expression about me - I always look both ways now :)
I'm not saying any of those are imminent, and I trust that if they were
you'd be taking the necessary action. But they also tend to sneak up so
sharing the load can only be a good thing.
>
> Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps. I don't want to see
> that the EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's
> really out of scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are
> interested, they should get on a jsrXXX list, to which the EG rep
> might post a technical summary to those on the list, but I would leave
> that up to the group on the jsrXXX list, how they want to work.
+1
>
> As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be doing
> this month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
Ok, I didn't notice it was only added in October. Is this a once off
move to Dec, or will it move to that 3 monthly rotation?
Is there any info you need from us before then? I really like the way
Jakarta does their board reports, getting everyone to fill in their own
pieces. If you would like to include the JSR heartbeats in this report,
then editing a file in SVN seems like a good way to assemble the report
and get feedback from the group in advance.
>>
>> I agree with all these, though the part about administrative
>> communication might be a bit difficult - instead I think a summary of
>> important things (not resorting to the 3-monthly report) would be the
>> best way here.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think that you'll find it isn't as interesting as you may suspect.
> EG reps should throw exceptions for trouble they are having that they
> want help with to this list (and a good thing to note on the page,
> btw!), but historically we've had little problem. (What we have had
> is me hearing about a problematic EG rep - this happened years ago -
> but the JCP knows how to handle that...) I've been writing summaries
> of administrative things to this list now that I know that there's
> interest, and encouraging people to bring their interest here (we
> should see someone wanting to be on JSR-199) pop up here soon.
>
I'm not suggesting it would be interesting :) I agree we don't need to
know everything, but I think some exposure to it is helpful in getting
more people involved.
> I'd suggest we just iterate and improve as time goes on.
+1
Thanks Geir. Sorry we didn't have a greater opportunity to discuss this
as a group at ApacheCon, though its good that everyone could be involved
here.
- Brett
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps. I don't want to see
>> that the
>
> +1 to the heartbeat. a) it's good to know for you and the board, b)
> it's good to know for PR (show off our jcp involvement) and c) it's
> good to know for asf committers (make them aware of the maturation
> of a jsr).
>
>> EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's really
>> out of scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are
>> interested, they should
>
> Report on events I'd say (wonder where I get that from :) ).
>
> So when they move to a new status in the JSR process, or there are
> people problems to report then.
The status is public info, and people problems on an expert group we
aren't leading is something the spec lead should take care of, and
only escalate to the ASF if the spec lead isn't handling it in a
professional way.
>
>> As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be
>> doing this month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
>
> Publishable? Or likely to often be discussing private issues.
Publishable if a board report.
>
> --
>
> JSR-162 is on the licsnsed page twice.
>
thx, and it's wrong. I meant 168. 162 was one that was abandoned
when it became a tool measuring contest between big companies and
several combined, IIRC. Fixed.
> Should we be linking to the projects that license a TCK? Also a
> section that links to the projects that implement a JSR?
I had the latter on my to-do list (the other thing is to list
projects that have formally tested). Former, only the ASF licenses
TCKs, but every project that implements a JSR should be testing as
per the terms of the spec license.
I was going to use the above to start hunting down projects and
making them test....
>
> Probably something special and prominent for official reference
> implementations.
Yes, but we only have one, Pluto. Code from Tomcat is used in the RI,
but it isn't the RI. Same w/ Jackrabbit AFAIK.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps. I don't want to see that the
+1 to the heartbeat. a) it's good to know for you and the board, b) it's
good to know for PR (show off our jcp involvement) and c) it's good to
know for asf committers (make them aware of the maturation of a jsr).
> EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's really out of
> scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are interested, they should
Report on events I'd say (wonder where I get that from :) ).
So when they move to a new status in the JSR process, or there are people
problems to report then.
> As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be doing this
> month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
Publishable? Or likely to often be discussing private issues.
--
JSR-162 is on the licsnsed page twice.
Should we be linking to the projects that license a TCK? Also a section
that links to the projects that implement a JSR?
Probably something special and prominent for official reference
implementations.
Hen
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> I discovered the new site that was committed. It's a comprehensive
> start
> for the user facing side - thanks!
Yah - it's live on www to make it easier for people to see/read, but
not linked yet. Seems like no major disasters in there, so I'll link
it.
>
> I have some random thoughts:
> - Is listing the private addresses appropriate on this page? There
> isn't
> really a precedent for listing a members only list on a public page,
> even if it is moderated, nor something like jcp-open that doesn't
> have a
> public archive.
Addresses of the people representing us? I thought about this and
figured we could work it out. I see no issue if we use the apache id
of the reps. Is that what you meant?
> - would it be more appropriate to put this content under the asylum in
> the long run? (not sure its necessary - just a thought)
Which content?
>
> Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
> 1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to collaborate.
> There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that would be
> interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the
> ideal,
> but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA) when the
> spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the case here.
> I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
> feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable
> solution
> given the constraints.
Sure. Actually, this is a fine way to do it. We can come to
conclusions from the ASF POV, and you can relay that message to the EG.
> 2) I'd like to play around with adding content related to the below to
> the site - but I don't want to put anything in that svn repo that
> isn't
> decided on. Is this an appropriate forum for discussion or can we get
> together and work through it?
Either works for me.
>
> There were also a bunch of points in previous emails that seemed to
> get
> lost. I'd like to revisit as I didn't get any feedback.
>
> Does it make sense to set up a PMC-like committee that can share
> some of
> the responsibilities? I'm not exactly sure how the PRC is defined or
> operates, but it might be similar. It seems to me that we should have
> these lists:
> - private. To be discussed only with those under NDA (not necessarily
> members, if this is allowed - those that fit the 2 categories I listed
> above)
> - public. Only committers can subscribe, but a public archive
> available. For discussing apache's process, participation and to
> provide
> feedback on JSRs of interest. Kind of like legal-discuss. Would be
> good
> to be as open as possible, without violating the trust of any EG's, so
> members of the private group need to be prudent.
> - jsrXXX-discuss. One per JSR where requested and multiple reps
> can't be on an EG. Only NDA'd individuals,
> but so more Apache people can discuss individual JSRs even if only one
> can be on an EG.
I think we have all of the above. There is a private members list,
this list which is public, and the jsrXXX-discuss is on it;s way for
277 at least.
As for a PMC-like committee, this interest group is effectively it.
I'm glad to see the interest.
>
>> * An EG representative should give quarterly reports to this list
>
> The JCP VP is meant to report to the board in Feb, May, Aug, Nov,
> though
> I'm not aware of whether this happens. Geir, can you shed some
> light on
> this? Anyway, it seems the perfect opportunity to provide feedback and
> issues, to the extent possible given that board reports go public
> after
> some time.
Yes, we do need a heartbeat from the EG reps. I don't want to see
that the EG rep is required to report all technical status - that's
really out of scope for the ASF-level interest, and if people are
interested, they should get on a jsrXXX list, to which the EG rep
might post a technical summary to those on the list, but I would
leave that up to the group on the jsrXXX list, how they want to work.
As for my report to the board, this is a new thing and I'll be doing
this month (I moved it to Dec from last month).
>
> Also some of Dain's suggestions:
>
> Openness
>> * Publicly document the process to join an EG
>> * Publicly document the requirements of an person representing
>> Apache
>> * All administrative communication between Apache and the JCP
>> should be
>> copied to this (or the private) list
>
>> * This list should discuss and vote to propose Apache sponsored
>> specifications
>
>>> Voting
>>> * This list should discuss all votes on the EC and decide how
>>> Apache
>>> will cast it's vote
>
> I agree with all these, though the part about administrative
> communication might be a bit difficult - instead I think a summary of
> important things (not resorting to the 3-monthly report) would be the
> best way here.
>
> Thoughts?
I think that you'll find it isn't as interesting as you may suspect.
EG reps should throw exceptions for trouble they are having that they
want help with to this list (and a good thing to note on the page,
btw!), but historically we've had little problem. (What we have had
is me hearing about a problematic EG rep - this happened years ago -
but the JCP knows how to handle that...) I've been writing
summaries of administrative things to this list now that I know that
there's interest, and encouraging people to bring their interest here
(we should see someone wanting to be on JSR-199) pop up here soon.
I'd suggest we just iterate and improve as time goes on.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 18, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Brett Porter wrote, On 12/16/2005 11:30 PM:
>> As I've said before, its not. In fact, after the monthly gzipping,
>> only
>> members have access. Committers can view the current month in
>> minotaur:~apmail/private-arch/jcp-open
>>
>> I'd strongly suggest we create new lists with a clearly defined
>> mission
>> and less confusing names.
>>
>> Alan - are you asking about archives of jsr277 discussion, or
>> discussion
>> on this list (there's been no jsr specifics here)?
>
> I've heard some discussion at ApacheCon about the Apache JSR rep
> taking
> his cue on how to vote from the community at large; I think that's a
> good idea. I was wondering if this was the email thread that spawned
> that discussion. I wanted to know more details how people thought it
> would work.
The idea is that if there's interest from others for a given JSR, we
setup a internal mail list (as many spec leads don't want more than
one person representing a given organization). Interested parties w/
in the ASF join this mail list and work with the person representing
the ASF on issues that arise. That mail list should also be able to
get a feed of the EG list traffic (rather than relying on the ASF rep
from having to manually forward each mail) to provide good visibility
on what is happening in the EG activities.
The question now is how can we do this in the most open manner
possible. If we can avoid having to put everyone under NDA, that
would be the best outcome. I've asked Brett if he would take a run
at this w/ 277, seeing if Stanley (the spec lead) has any problem
with this...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brett Porter wrote, On 12/16/2005 11:30 PM:
> As I've said before, its not. In fact, after the monthly gzipping, only
> members have access. Committers can view the current month in
> minotaur:~apmail/private-arch/jcp-open
>
> I'd strongly suggest we create new lists with a clearly defined mission
> and less confusing names.
>
> Alan - are you asking about archives of jsr277 discussion, or discussion
> on this list (there's been no jsr specifics here)?
I've heard some discussion at ApacheCon about the Apache JSR rep taking
his cue on how to vote from the community at large; I think that's a
good idea. I was wondering if this was the email thread that spawned
that discussion. I wanted to know more details how people thought it
would work.
Regards,
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDpaWi1xC6qnMLUpYRAsp5AJ9S1kH11KbMry7O0XlTjnGraX0OSACeLg7O
Hy3+WHVBSAxmCZj/+OFpo74=
=gBdV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 17, 2005, at 2:30 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> As I've said before, its not. In fact, after the monthly gzipping,
> only
> members have access. Committers can view the current month in
> minotaur:~apmail/private-arch/jcp-open
We should make it so.
>
> I'd strongly suggest we create new lists with a clearly defined
> mission
> and less confusing names.
why is this confusing? This is the list for open discussion about
JCP activities...
>
> Alan - are you asking about archives of jsr277 discussion, or
> discussion
> on this list (there's been no jsr specifics here)?
>
> - Brett
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> given that this is supposed to be an open list, the archive should be
> available
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett Porter wrote, On 12/14/2005 12:22 PM:
>>>>> Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
>>>>> 1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to
>>>>> collaborate.
>>>>> There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that
>>>>> would be
>>>>> interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the
>> ideal,
>>>>> but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA)
>>>>> when the
>>>>> spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the
>>>>> case here.
>>>>> I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
>>>>> feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable
>> solution
>>>>> given the constraints.
>>
>> I'm coming in on the tail end of this conversation. This sounds
>> kind of
>> interesting. Is there an archives I can read to bring me up to
>> date on
>> this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>>
>
>> --Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geir@optonline.net
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
As I've said before, its not. In fact, after the monthly gzipping, only
members have access. Committers can view the current month in
minotaur:~apmail/private-arch/jcp-open
I'd strongly suggest we create new lists with a clearly defined mission
and less confusing names.
Alan - are you asking about archives of jsr277 discussion, or discussion
on this list (there's been no jsr specifics here)?
- Brett
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> given that this is supposed to be an open list, the archive should be
available
>
> geir
>
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>
> Brett Porter wrote, On 12/14/2005 12:22 PM:
> >>> Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
> >>> 1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to collaborate.
> >>> There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that would be
> >>> interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the
> ideal,
> >>> but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA) when the
> >>> spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the case here.
> >>> I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
> >>> feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable
> solution
> >>> given the constraints.
>
> I'm coming in on the tail end of this conversation. This sounds kind of
> interesting. Is there an archives I can read to bring me up to date on
> this?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>>
> --Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geir@optonline.net
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
given that this is supposed to be an open list, the archive should be
available
geir
On Dec 16, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Brett Porter wrote, On 12/14/2005 12:22 PM:
>> Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
>> 1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to collaborate.
>> There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that would be
>> interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the
>> ideal,
>> but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA) when the
>> spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the case
>> here.
>> I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
>> feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable
>> solution
>> given the constraints.
>
> I'm coming in on the tail end of this conversation. This sounds
> kind of
> interesting. Is there an archives I can read to bring me up to
> date on
> this?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDo2501xC6qnMLUpYRAgTsAJ42yeO2tXFZiMMgZ0+R9Ww+/9H7bACfR5wx
> sX2K5hYE2vcojZVsoSe+GbA=
> =4jdp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net
Re: thoughts on new site
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brett Porter wrote, On 12/14/2005 12:22 PM:
> Two things I'd like to do ASAP:
> 1) set up the jsr277 list that was proposed as a way to collaborate.
> There are at least 2 or 3 people not already on the EG that would be
> interested to hear more on the progress. I realise this isn't the ideal,
> but its a reasonable way to discuss with others (under NDA) when the
> spec lead hasn't allowed multiple representatives as is the case here.
> I'm more than happy to filter the content through and pass on any
> feedback and thoughts, and experiment until we find a workable solution
> given the constraints.
I'm coming in on the tail end of this conversation. This sounds kind of
interesting. Is there an archives I can read to bring me up to date on
this?
Regards,
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDo2501xC6qnMLUpYRAgTsAJ42yeO2tXFZiMMgZ0+R9Ww+/9H7bACfR5wx
sX2K5hYE2vcojZVsoSe+GbA=
=4jdp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----