Policy for being on a JSR?

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Where do we stand regarding JSRs we vote no on.  I am assuming if we
vote no, then Apache will not have representation on the JSR?

We are currently listed as a "supporter" on the JSR-316 page...and I
don't know whether we continue to sit on the EG or does Geir tell them
to pull out name as a supporter?

Thanks,

Jeff

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:06 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
>
>>
>> It would seem prudent to me to wait until the JSR is complete and  
>> on an individual basis determine if the Spec, TCK and other  
>> license issues are acceptable.  The right way to solve this would  
>> seem to be to get the JCP to fix the T's and C's on a spec first.
>>

The above was more of my point.  Is there any effort actively engaged  
(apart from the no votes) to have T's & C's spelled out clearly  
before the vote?  Perhaps this is already the policy but having waded  
through so many e-mails I'm afraid I've lost track.

>
>>   Seems like we can be getting ourselves in the position of people  
>> accepting us voting no and possibly implementing the spec later if  
>> things are cool which diminishes the power of our vote.
>
> Could be.  Clearly this is overstating it, but the only thing  
> required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do  
> nothing.   I think Java is too important to let Sun get away with  
> this.  Ask a friendly neighborhood EC member what they are doing. :)
>

I'm not sure how this is overstating it.  If the EC doesn't take some  
action then this will be the case I spect.

Whatever happened to the good 'ol days when a bunch of angry  
villagers could grab torches, clubs and pitchforks and head straight  
to Dr. Frankenstein's pad?

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

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

On Aug 7, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I meant to ask this because it applies for Java EE, as well as the  
>> ones today.
>>
>> What's the consensus?  I can probably argue this one either way.
>
> It would seem prudent to me to wait until the JSR is complete and  
> on an individual basis determine if the Spec, TCK and other license  
> issues are acceptable.  The right way to solve this would seem to  
> be to get the JCP to fix the T's and C's on a spec first.
>
> I thought the reason we voted no was that the terms weren't clearly  
> spelled out.

No - we vote no when Sun is the spec lead, because it's our POV that  
any signatory of the JSPA that isn't living up to the obligations of  
the JSPA shouldn't be able to do things like start new JSRs until  
their non-compliance is resolved.

> I personally don't think we should vote down every spec where the  
> lead is from Sun but should if the terms are inappropriate.

Uh huh. :)  We will vote against any spec where Sun is the spec lead  
until Sun fixes the non-compliance problem.  Friends don't let  
friends violate JSPAs.

>   Seems like we can be getting ourselves in the position of people  
> accepting us voting no and possibly implementing the spec later if  
> things are cool which diminishes the power of our vote.

Could be.  Clearly this is overstating it, but the only thing  
required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do  
nothing.   I think Java is too important to let Sun get away with  
this.  Ask a friendly neighborhood EC member what they are doing. :)

>
> I'm glad Geronimo was able to achieve Java EE 5.0 certification  
> because I think 6.0 is going to not be as easy.

One never can tell.

geir

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> I meant to ask this because it applies for Java EE, as well as the  
> ones today.
>
> What's the consensus?  I can probably argue this one either way.

It would seem prudent to me to wait until the JSR is complete and on  
an individual basis determine if the Spec, TCK and other license  
issues are acceptable.  The right way to solve this would seem to be  
to get the JCP to fix the T's and C's on a spec first.

I thought the reason we voted no was that the terms weren't clearly  
spelled out.  I personally don't think we should vote down every spec  
where the lead is from Sun but should if the terms are  
inappropriate.  Seems like we can be getting ourselves in the  
position of people accepting us voting no and possibly implementing  
the spec later if things are cool which diminishes the power of our  
vote.

I'm glad Geronimo was able to achieve Java EE 5.0 certification  
because I think 6.0 is going to not be as easy.

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

[Roland Weber <ro...@apache.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> What's the consensus?  I can probably argue this one either way.

My view is that if we don't trust the spec lead and vote no
for that reason, then we don't support the respective JSR.
The spec lead is invited to fix the problems in order to get
back our support.

cheers,
  Roland
> 
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> Where do we stand regarding JSRs we vote no on.  I am assuming if we
>> vote no, then Apache will not have representation on the JSR?
>>
>> We are currently listed as a "supporter" on the JSR-316 page...and I
>> don't know whether we continue to sit on the EG or does Geir tell them
>> to pull out name as a supporter?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
> 

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

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

I meant to ask this because it applies for Java EE, as well as the  
ones today.

What's the consensus?  I can probably argue this one either way.

geir

On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Where do we stand regarding JSRs we vote no on.  I am assuming if we
> vote no, then Apache will not have representation on the JSR?
>
> We are currently listed as a "supporter" on the JSR-316 page...and I
> don't know whether we continue to sit on the EG or does Geir tell them
> to pull out name as a supporter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff

Re: Policy for being on a JSR?

[Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>]

On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Where do we stand regarding JSRs we vote no on.  I am assuming if we
> vote no, then Apache will not have representation on the JSR?

And moving further along - would it be appropriate to certify our  
software against those JSR's if we voted no and pulled out of the  
JSR? (this is to rephrase a question by Matthias in the same thread).  
I guess even if it is appropriate, it will be sending a mixed signal.

Andrus