request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of a JSR:

jsr277-discuss@apache.org

It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer for
initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after we're
set up).

The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed the
appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list, even
if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix group
"jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access to the
archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial membership
would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt

If this is problematic, the list can be created as unarchived and I will
ensure a running summary is always ready to send to new members.

Can someone help out with this?

For more info, Geir has discussed these lists in the past:

200507: <A4...@apache.org>
200510: <29...@apache.org>

Thanks,
Brett

[1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Just a status update. I sent this mail rather than wait for further
clarification as I said at the end.

Everyone is back from holidays now and I got a ping back that it is
being looked into.

I'm also confirming what the licensing of the RI and TCK will be, as
currently the proposal says "This JSR and its RI and TCK are intended to
be part of the J2SE 7.0 RI and TCK, respectively.", and I'm not sure if
that is determined.

If this isn't resolved by next week, can we agree to create the list
with extra restrictions?

- Brett

Brett Porter wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I don't want to stall it either.
> Ok, I'll get stuck into that mail now and if it looks like it will take
> some time, we create the list regardless. Is that a reasonable compromise?
>>> - it's unlikely to be blanket discussion. It may actually be more
>>> productive to just discuss under NDA than to have to dodge around topics
>>> or vet everything I share - and it's important that we continue to
>>> respect the wishes of the EG whatever they might be.
>> I thought we'd subscribe the EG list to our list.
> By that you mean our list receives the EG mail but not vice-versa I
> assume. I'm all for that if the EG is and the interest group is. It's
> potentially a flood of mail they don't want to deal with and might find
> confusing as to what they are replying to and discussing internally.
> Maybe it would be better to work to make it easy to add additional
> people to the "read only" list on the EG as I was initially, and use the
> internal list for discussion. Those that just want to hear the
> highlights and provide feedback can also do that.
>>> - whatever we do here may need to be done again for other groups. Will
>>> they all have to wait, or will we end up creating this group anyway?
>> I don't understand the question there.
> Whatever arrangement I can come to with Stanley regarding JSR277 will
> have to be replicated for other JSRs over time. While the precedent
> might help, we may find ourselves needing to create an NDA'd group
> anyway, so I'm not sure its harmful to do now.
>>> In regards to what I am suggesting to Stanley, we intend to set up:
>>> - a list for committers only
>>> - no public archive, but privately archived for committers
>>> - will not require a signed NDA as this often is difficult for them to
>>> do with their own employment arrangements
>> So far, we've never had that problem with an employer.
> It's what's currently delaying Steve from getting involved, right? I'm
> not saying anyone has a problem with it, but that its a hurdle. I'll
> just simplify this to say its a barrier to entry.
>>> - will be under a standing agreement with the committers that it should
>>> remain ASF-confidential
>> I don't know what that really means if you don't have an NDA.  If a
>> person can't agree to a written NDA, how can they agree to a verbal or
>> implied one?
> I'm just wanting to assure him that the discussion will remain
> confidential. There is a strong indication at this point that it is
> desired to be that way. The barrier to agreeing to the NDA is not so
> much that they won't discuss but that they have to sign the piece of paper.
>>> - will still be presented to the EG as one voice from the ASF, though
>>> the current rep
>> Definitely.  Our list would be internal only - you would be the person
>> to talk on the list on behalf of that group.
>>
>> The only other solution I can think of to have everyone who wants to
>> do this join the JCP.  I *think* that they would then be covered, and
>> then Stanley wouldn't have a problem with sharing the info, or shouldn't.
> That seems much more arduous than signing an NDA.
>> However, that doesn't get us anywhere closer to the goal of opening up
>> EG discussions...
> I think you need to restate your goal into something more tangible. Try
> not to use the word "open" or any derivative of it :)
> 
> I'm honestly very confused by what you are trying to achieve here. On
> the participation side, everything is "open". Anyone can contribute
> through the EG rep. I'd even take feedback from people outside the ASF,
> and as long as it sites well with our understanding, would be happy to
> express it. The limitation to this is that it is not very effective
> without the ability to see what is going on inside the group.
> 
> As far as what others can know, are you trying to open it up to all ASF
> committers without restriction, or do you want the public at large to
> have visibility of the discussion inside the group? I thought it was the
> first and I think that's a reasonable request. The latter is an
> admirable goal, but not something I think we can leap to right now.
> 
> I'll wait for your clarification before initiating this other mail so
> that we are on the same page.
> 
> - Brett
> 

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I don't want to stall it either.
Ok, I'll get stuck into that mail now and if it looks like it will take
some time, we create the list regardless. Is that a reasonable compromise?
>
>> - it's unlikely to be blanket discussion. It may actually be more
>> productive to just discuss under NDA than to have to dodge around topics
>> or vet everything I share - and it's important that we continue to
>> respect the wishes of the EG whatever they might be.
>
> I thought we'd subscribe the EG list to our list.
By that you mean our list receives the EG mail but not vice-versa I
assume. I'm all for that if the EG is and the interest group is. It's
potentially a flood of mail they don't want to deal with and might find
confusing as to what they are replying to and discussing internally.
Maybe it would be better to work to make it easy to add additional
people to the "read only" list on the EG as I was initially, and use the
internal list for discussion. Those that just want to hear the
highlights and provide feedback can also do that.
>
>> - whatever we do here may need to be done again for other groups. Will
>> they all have to wait, or will we end up creating this group anyway?
>
> I don't understand the question there.
Whatever arrangement I can come to with Stanley regarding JSR277 will
have to be replicated for other JSRs over time. While the precedent
might help, we may find ourselves needing to create an NDA'd group
anyway, so I'm not sure its harmful to do now.
>>
>> In regards to what I am suggesting to Stanley, we intend to set up:
>> - a list for committers only
>> - no public archive, but privately archived for committers
>> - will not require a signed NDA as this often is difficult for them to
>> do with their own employment arrangements
>
> So far, we've never had that problem with an employer.
It's what's currently delaying Steve from getting involved, right? I'm
not saying anyone has a problem with it, but that its a hurdle. I'll
just simplify this to say its a barrier to entry.
>
>> - will be under a standing agreement with the committers that it should
>> remain ASF-confidential
>
> I don't know what that really means if you don't have an NDA.  If a
> person can't agree to a written NDA, how can they agree to a verbal or
> implied one?
I'm just wanting to assure him that the discussion will remain
confidential. There is a strong indication at this point that it is
desired to be that way. The barrier to agreeing to the NDA is not so
much that they won't discuss but that they have to sign the piece of paper.
>
>> - will still be presented to the EG as one voice from the ASF, though
>> the current rep
>
> Definitely.  Our list would be internal only - you would be the person
> to talk on the list on behalf of that group.
>
> The only other solution I can think of to have everyone who wants to
> do this join the JCP.  I *think* that they would then be covered, and
> then Stanley wouldn't have a problem with sharing the info, or shouldn't.
That seems much more arduous than signing an NDA.
>
> However, that doesn't get us anywhere closer to the goal of opening up
> EG discussions...
I think you need to restate your goal into something more tangible. Try
not to use the word "open" or any derivative of it :)

I'm honestly very confused by what you are trying to achieve here. On
the participation side, everything is "open". Anyone can contribute
through the EG rep. I'd even take feedback from people outside the ASF,
and as long as it sites well with our understanding, would be happy to
express it. The limitation to this is that it is not very effective
without the ability to see what is going on inside the group.

As far as what others can know, are you trying to open it up to all ASF
committers without restriction, or do you want the public at large to
have visibility of the discussion inside the group? I thought it was the
first and I think that's a reasonable request. The latter is an
admirable goal, but not something I think we can leap to right now.

I'll wait for your clarification before initiating this other mail so
that we are on the same page.

- Brett

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>]

On Dec 18, 2005, at 5:07 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> (dropped infra@ until we sort it out).
>
> I definitely want to do this (I already suggested something similar  
> when
> Steve initially wanted to participate).
>
> However, some concerns:
> - this is not going to be an immediate decision. It's now been 5  
> months
> since the list was initially suggested - I don't want to delay it
> another month or more.

I don't want to stall it either.

> - it's unlikely to be blanket discussion. It may actually be more
> productive to just discuss under NDA than to have to dodge around  
> topics
> or vet everything I share - and it's important that we continue to
> respect the wishes of the EG whatever they might be.

I thought we'd subscribe the EG list to our list.

> - whatever we do here may need to be done again for other groups. Will
> they all have to wait, or will we end up creating this group anyway?

I don't understand the question there.

>
> So I would like to create this anyway, and work on the NDA issue in
> parallel. Neither should affect the other, so it is a progression to
> more openness.
>
> As far as implementation - no where near that stage in the EG yet, so
> its a discussion for another time, but something I will be working on
> keeping open (including testing) the moment it does turn up.
>
> In regards to what I am suggesting to Stanley, we intend to set up:
> - a list for committers only
> - no public archive, but privately archived for committers
> - will not require a signed NDA as this often is difficult for them to
> do with their own employment arrangements

So far, we've never had that problem with an employer.

> - will be under a standing agreement with the committers that it  
> should
> remain ASF-confidential

I don't know what that really means if you don't have an NDA.  If a  
person can't agree to a written NDA, how can they agree to a verbal  
or implied one?

> - will still be presented to the EG as one voice from the ASF, though
> the current rep

Definitely.  Our list would be internal only - you would be the  
person to talk on the list on behalf of that group.

The only other solution I can think of to have everyone who wants to  
do this join the JCP.  I *think* that they would then be covered, and  
then Stanley wouldn't have a problem with sharing the info, or  
shouldn't.

However, that doesn't get us anywhere closer to the goal of opening  
up EG discussions...

geir

>
> Does everyone agree with that?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Our main goal in participating in the JCP is to open it up, inch by
>> inch.   Things have been relatively quiet, and I think there's an
>> opportunity here.
>>
>> Before we create another locked-down communication forum, lets use
>> this as a chance to unhook the NDA requirement for these
>> discussions.   (There's a bunch of other places I want to unhook the
>> NDA, but this is a good place to start...)
>>
>> Brett, I'd like you to approach Stanley and explain the situation of
>> having more interest in the ASF for the JSR.  (He should be aware  
>> from
>> the time we wanted more than one rep.)  Tell him that we'd like to
>> have an interest list for committers, but don't want to require an  
>> NDA
>> for it, as we want to have open discussion internally [whatever that
>> means in an open community] about what's happening on the EG in
>> support of you representing us, and further, we want to start
>> implementing whatever the EG is coming up with.
>>
>> I'm happy to help if you need it, but as you know Stanley better than
>> I do at this point you should take a wack at this if you are  
>> willing...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2005, at 3:01 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of  
>>> a JSR:
>>>
>>> jsr277-discuss@apache.org
>>>
>>> It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer  
>>> for
>>> initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after  
>>> we're
>>> set up).
>>>
>>> The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed  
>>> the
>>> appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list,  
>>> even
>>> if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix  
>>> group
>>> "jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access  
>>> to the
>>> archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial  
>>> membership
>>> would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
>>>
>>> If this is problematic, the list can be created as unarchived and  
>>> I will
>>> ensure a running summary is always ready to send to new members.
>>>
>>> Can someone help out with this?
>>>
>>> For more info, Geir has discussed these lists in the past:
>>>
>>> 200507: <A4...@apache.org>
>>> 200510: <29...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>
>> --Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

(dropped infra@ until we sort it out).

I definitely want to do this (I already suggested something similar when
Steve initially wanted to participate).

However, some concerns:
- this is not going to be an immediate decision. It's now been 5 months
since the list was initially suggested - I don't want to delay it
another month or more.
- it's unlikely to be blanket discussion. It may actually be more
productive to just discuss under NDA than to have to dodge around topics
or vet everything I share - and it's important that we continue to
respect the wishes of the EG whatever they might be.
- whatever we do here may need to be done again for other groups. Will
they all have to wait, or will we end up creating this group anyway?

So I would like to create this anyway, and work on the NDA issue in
parallel. Neither should affect the other, so it is a progression to
more openness.

As far as implementation - no where near that stage in the EG yet, so
its a discussion for another time, but something I will be working on
keeping open (including testing) the moment it does turn up.

In regards to what I am suggesting to Stanley, we intend to set up:
- a list for committers only
- no public archive, but privately archived for committers
- will not require a signed NDA as this often is difficult for them to
do with their own employment arrangements
- will be under a standing agreement with the committers that it should
remain ASF-confidential
- will still be presented to the EG as one voice from the ASF, though
the current rep

Does everyone agree with that?

Cheers,
Brett

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Our main goal in participating in the JCP is to open it up, inch by
> inch.   Things have been relatively quiet, and I think there's an
> opportunity here.
>
> Before we create another locked-down communication forum, lets use
> this as a chance to unhook the NDA requirement for these
> discussions.   (There's a bunch of other places I want to unhook the
> NDA, but this is a good place to start...)
>
> Brett, I'd like you to approach Stanley and explain the situation of
> having more interest in the ASF for the JSR.  (He should be aware from
> the time we wanted more than one rep.)  Tell him that we'd like to
> have an interest list for committers, but don't want to require an NDA
> for it, as we want to have open discussion internally [whatever that
> means in an open community] about what's happening on the EG in
> support of you representing us, and further, we want to start
> implementing whatever the EG is coming up with.
>
> I'm happy to help if you need it, but as you know Stanley better than
> I do at this point you should take a wack at this if you are willing...
>
> geir
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2005, at 3:01 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of a JSR:
>>
>> jsr277-discuss@apache.org
>>
>> It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer for
>> initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after we're
>> set up).
>>
>> The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed the
>> appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list, even
>> if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix group
>> "jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access to the
>> archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial membership
>> would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
>>
>> If this is problematic, the list can be created as unarchived and I will
>> ensure a running summary is always ready to send to new members.
>>
>> Can someone help out with this?
>>
>> For more info, Geir has discussed these lists in the past:
>>
>> 200507: <A4...@apache.org>
>> 200510: <29...@apache.org>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brett
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>
> --Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>]

Our main goal in participating in the JCP is to open it up, inch by  
inch.   Things have been relatively quiet, and I think there's an  
opportunity here.

Before we create another locked-down communication forum, lets use  
this as a chance to unhook the NDA requirement for these  
discussions.   (There's a bunch of other places I want to unhook the  
NDA, but this is a good place to start...)

Brett, I'd like you to approach Stanley and explain the situation of  
having more interest in the ASF for the JSR.  (He should be aware  
from the time we wanted more than one rep.)  Tell him that we'd like  
to have an interest list for committers, but don't want to require an  
NDA for it, as we want to have open discussion internally [whatever  
that means in an open community] about what's happening on the EG in  
support of you representing us, and further, we want to start  
implementing whatever the EG is coming up with.

I'm happy to help if you need it, but as you know Stanley better than  
I do at this point you should take a wack at this if you are willing...

geir


On Dec 17, 2005, at 3:01 AM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of a  
> JSR:
>
> jsr277-discuss@apache.org
>
> It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer for
> initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after  
> we're
> set up).
>
> The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed the
> appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list, even
> if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix group
> "jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access to  
> the
> archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial membership
> would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
>
> If this is problematic, the list can be created as unarchived and I  
> will
> ensure a running summary is always ready to send to new members.
>
> Can someone help out with this?
>
> For more info, Geir has discussed these lists in the past:
>
> 200507: <A4...@apache.org>
> 200510: <29...@apache.org>
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>]

On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:

> Brett Porter wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of a  
>> JSR:
>> jsr277-discuss@apache.org
>> It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer for
>> initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after  
>> we're
>> set up).
>> The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed the
>> appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list,  
>> even
>> if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix group
>> "jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access  
>> to the
>> archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial membership
>> would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
>
> Shouldn't it also be open to people who have NDA access by virtue  
> of their employer being a JCP member.

No, I wouldn't want to see that, because things become too  
confusing.  If you are representing/participating at the ASF, then  
there shouldn't be any procedural/process "side-doors" like that.   
Also, I think this creates a mess in the even such a person would  
contribute IP from their employer into a spec via the ASF w/o the  
employer's knowledge.  I just don't want the ASF to be seen,  
correctly or incorrectly, as a channel for such things.

The JCP rules scare the bejeezus out of big IP owners and they act  
very carefully in the JCP's activities.  Lets not give them a reason  
to not want to allow their employees to participate here.

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org

Re: request to create private list jsr277-discuss@apache.org

[Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>]

Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to create the following list for internal discussion of a JSR:
> 
> jsr277-discuss@apache.org
> 
> It must have moderated subscription and posting (I will volunteer for
> initial moderation, and will get another member to help out after we're
> set up).
> 
> The archive is tricky - unfortunately only those that have signed the
> appropriate document [1] will be able to participate in the list, even
> if they are ASF members. Ideally, I think we should have a unix group
> "jcp-nda" for everyone that has this on file that governs access to the
> archives for any such list, TCK material, etc. The initial membership
> would be those listed in svn:/foundation/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt

Shouldn't it also be open to people who have NDA access by virtue of 
their employer being a JCP member.