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...@pobox.com> on 2007/07/15 22:03:29 UTC
JSR-316 Vote
The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR
until the matter is cleared up. No reason to screw around with
uncertain and fluid rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists,
whatever....
geir
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
> view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
> therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another
> JSR until the matter is cleared up. No reason to screw around with
> uncertain and fluid rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists,
> whatever....
>
+1
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/15/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
> view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
> therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR
> until the matter is cleared up. No reason to screw around with
> uncertain and fluid rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists,
> whatever....
+1
- robert
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/15/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
> view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
> therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR
> until the matter is cleared up.
+1
- Sam Ruby
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
+1..
Mvgr,
Martin
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
>
> geir
>
>
>
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
>
> geir
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 to no from me.
-- dims
On 7/15/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
> >
> > I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> > point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
> >
> > I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> > this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> > don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> > is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> > rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
>
> I believe this is a sound position.
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
I believe this is a sound position.
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> is cleared up.
+1
Mark
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
On Jul 19, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Bill Barker wrote:
> If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults on the
> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw.
I don't agree that ASF is acting irresponsibly in this case, but even
a responsible action may bring no desired results. So...
In such situations my own first preference is action, not activism,
meaning - can we do the right thing ourselves vs. forcing somebody
else into doing that right thing. (I don't imply anything bad by
"activism", I simply mean that as one possible way of the problem
solving). In this light the idea of an open standards body is much
more attractive than a legal (or otherwise) war with Sun. That may be
a long shot, but the benefit would be huge too. So anybody thinks
this is a realistic idea, and dissatisfaction with JCP among its
players is enough to get most of them on board?
Andrus
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> wrote in message
news:469F8215.6080500@buni.org...
>> On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
>> And now we look like the FSF...
>
> I think that is a high compliment. Probably undeserved.
>
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> During the 18th century, it was customary to fire a warning shot[1]
>
> The problem is that I think this looks more like a toothless Chiuaua
> barking.
>
OMG, I'm agreeing with Andrew twice in one week. Lawd take me now ;-).
The problem with the warning shot is that we didn't send it across the bow,
we sent it directly down into our own hull :(.
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> IMO, the only people acting like children are the folks who can't
>> see past their own short-term interests.
>
> This is the crux of the problem of why there will never be consensus on
> this issue. While I'm against board action generally and the board was
> for awhile going a little overboard imo...board action got Apache into
> this mess, only board action gets Apache out.
> Exactly what I thought would happen on "change the JCP from the
> inside"...you don't change "the system"..."the system" changes you.
>
> -andy
>
> --
> Buni Meldware Communication Suite
> http://buni.org
> Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including freebusy),
> Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/administration.
>
>
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
> On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
> And now we look like the FSF...
I think that is a high compliment. Probably undeserved.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> During the 18th century, it was customary to fire a warning shot[1]
The problem is that I think this looks more like a toothless Chiuaua
barking.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> IMO, the only people acting like children are the folks who can't
> see past their own short-term interests.
This is the crux of the problem of why there will never be consensus on
this issue. While I'm against board action generally and the board was
for awhile going a little overboard imo...board action got Apache into
this mess, only board action gets Apache out.
Exactly what I thought would happen on "change the JCP from the
inside"...you don't change "the system"..."the system" changes you.
-andy
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/19/07, Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com> wrote:
>
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote in
> message news:5FA3B60E-0AF6-4D32-9803-919D30C06130@pobox.com...
> > The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
> >
> > I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> > point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
> >
> > I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> > this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> > don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> > is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> > rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
>
> And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which didn't
> change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
> didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least until now) with
> IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody explain to me
> why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-year old JSR,
> that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the skies three
> years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults on the
> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we look like a
> little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold our breath
> until we die' :(.
I believe you misinterpret this action.
During the 18th century, it was customary to fire a warning shot[1]
across the bow of any ship that acted in a hostile manner and refused
to be hailed.
If we ever withdraw, I would prefer that we did so as responsible
adults and only after exploring and exhausting every possible
alternative first, no matter how unlikely these precursor actions are
to bear results.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_shot
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 19, 2007, at 5:20 AM, Bill Barker wrote:
>
> "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote in message
> news:4934EB0F-11D0-4A5B-8301-FB877462DA21@gbiv.com...
>> On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
>>> And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which
>>> didn't
>>> change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
>>> didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least
>>> until now)
>>> with
>>> IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody
>>> explain to
>>> me
>>> why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-
>>> year old
>>> JSR,
>>> that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the
>>> skies
>>> three
>>> years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible
>>> adults on the
>>> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we
>>> look
>>> like a
>>> little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold
>>> our
>>> breath
>>> until we die' :(.
>>
>> So, you are suggesting that we should file suit against Sun,
>> like "responsible adults", or what? What exactly does a "responsible
>> adult" do in a situation where a large corporation promises one
>> thing (five years ago) in order to obtain our support, and then
>> backs out on that promise when it comes time to deliver? It's
>> not as if we can go back in time and change our support of the JCP.
>>
>
> Exactly. Both Sun and the ASF are US entities under US law, so if we
> decided to pull the nuclear option, then the correct choice would
> have been
> to sue Sun (assuming that legal@ supports are claims, I wouldn't
> know, and
> IMNAL). Throwing temper tantrums like we did on 316 only serves to
> diminish
> the reputation of the ASF. I didn't vote against Geir's proposal only
> because I trusted that he knew that it wouldn't get approved 14-1
> (and, my
> vote would have been non-binding anyway :).
How can you think of this as a "temper tantrum"? While I didn't
think that we'd get the rest of the EC to change their vote, this is
the only tool that we have to use as an EC member - apart from the
public pressure we've put on them with the open letter, and a lawsuit
that we won't file.
In a sense, we are voting as a member of the "court of the EC" to
place an injunction on Sun for these key JCP activities until we get
this problem sorted.
>
>> IMO, the only people acting like children are the folks who can't
>> see past their own short-term interests. There wouldn't be any
>> open source JCP implementations if Apache hadn't insisted on those
>> principles back in 1999 and 2002, Sun didn't agree to them until we
>> gave them the choice of agreeing or us leaving, and this specific
>> vote was about whether Sun could be trusted to act as spec lead
>> in accordance with the JSPA. If we aren't going to vote no on that,
>> then why bother being on the EC?
>>
>
> As I said before (and, in very rare agreement with Oliver here, but
> for
> different reasons), maybe we shouldn't be. Just throwing temper
> tantrums,
> like we did on 316 helps nobody. We now have to explain to our
> allies that
> we won't always be this political in all our votes (unless we
> really do want
> to transform into the FSF). At the moment, everyone else on the
> JCP that
> wants to go on the record against the FOU restrictions wants to
> work within
> the system to change it. So, I repeat my question: Why is this
> worth a
> p*ssing match?
This is working "within the system". Our vote as an EC member
includes aspects other than technical. IIRC, the EC has either
rejected JSRs, or encouraged submitters to withdraw proposals based
on EC concerns about the spec leads ability to complete, or other
factors.
You may call it "political" if you wish, but it's no more political
than a drunk driving suspect losing their driver's license until
trial. "EC members don't let other EC members license with FOU".
Our position is that Sun is acting in a manner in violation of some
the basic tenets of the JCP, some that the ASF fought very hard to
put in place.
I'm sorry I didn't vote "no" sooner - I was hoping that we could do
it first for Java SE 7's JSR.
geir
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
"Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote in message
news:4934EB0F-11D0-4A5B-8301-FB877462DA21@gbiv.com...
> On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
>> And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which
>> didn't
>> change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
>> didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least until now)
>> with
>> IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody explain to
>> me
>> why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-year old
>> JSR,
>> that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the skies
>> three
>> years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults on the
>> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we look
>> like a
>> little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold our
>> breath
>> until we die' :(.
>
> So, you are suggesting that we should file suit against Sun,
> like "responsible adults", or what? What exactly does a "responsible
> adult" do in a situation where a large corporation promises one
> thing (five years ago) in order to obtain our support, and then
> backs out on that promise when it comes time to deliver? It's
> not as if we can go back in time and change our support of the JCP.
>
Exactly. Both Sun and the ASF are US entities under US law, so if we
decided to pull the nuclear option, then the correct choice would have been
to sue Sun (assuming that legal@ supports are claims, I wouldn't know, and
IMNAL). Throwing temper tantrums like we did on 316 only serves to diminish
the reputation of the ASF. I didn't vote against Geir's proposal only
because I trusted that he knew that it wouldn't get approved 14-1 (and, my
vote would have been non-binding anyway :).
> IMO, the only people acting like children are the folks who can't
> see past their own short-term interests. There wouldn't be any
> open source JCP implementations if Apache hadn't insisted on those
> principles back in 1999 and 2002, Sun didn't agree to them until we
> gave them the choice of agreeing or us leaving, and this specific
> vote was about whether Sun could be trusted to act as spec lead
> in accordance with the JSPA. If we aren't going to vote no on that,
> then why bother being on the EC?
>
As I said before (and, in very rare agreement with Oliver here, but for
different reasons), maybe we shouldn't be. Just throwing temper tantrums,
like we did on 316 helps nobody. We now have to explain to our allies that
we won't always be this political in all our votes (unless we really do want
to transform into the FSF). At the moment, everyone else on the JCP that
wants to go on the record against the FOU restrictions wants to work within
the system to change it. So, I repeat my question: Why is this worth a
p*ssing match?
> ....Roy
>
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
> And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which
> didn't
> change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
> didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least until
> now) with
> IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody explain
> to me
> why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-year
> old JSR,
> that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the
> skies three
> years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults
> on the
> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we
> look like a
> little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold
> our breath
> until we die' :(.
So, you are suggesting that we should file suit against Sun,
like "responsible adults", or what? What exactly does a "responsible
adult" do in a situation where a large corporation promises one
thing (five years ago) in order to obtain our support, and then
backs out on that promise when it comes time to deliver? It's
not as if we can go back in time and change our support of the JCP.
IMO, the only people acting like children are the folks who can't
see past their own short-term interests. There wouldn't be any
open source JCP implementations if Apache hadn't insisted on those
principles back in 1999 and 2002, Sun didn't agree to them until we
gave them the choice of agreeing or us leaving, and this specific
vote was about whether Sun could be trusted to act as spec lead
in accordance with the JSPA. If we aren't going to vote no on that,
then why bother being on the EC?
....Roy
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Yeah I had my concerns about this approach or at least how it would
appear. I guess If we were going to make a statement vote then it ought
to have been on one with the apparent issue. However, the veracity of
Mr. Barker's comments are unwarranted. If the JCP generates non-open
source licensable JSRs and continues to operate under unnecessary
secrecy, then I do agree with him that Apache should withdraw and look
at coming up with a standards board more to its liking. It continues to
seem inappropriate to have secret closed-community open source
development @ Apache.
-andy
Bill Barker wrote:
>
> And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which didn't
> change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
> didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least until now) with
> IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody explain to me
> why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-year old JSR,
> that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the skies three
> years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults on the
> JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we look like a
> little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold our breath
> until we die' :(.
>
>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote in
message news:5FA3B60E-0AF6-4D32-9803-919D30C06130@pobox.com...
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of view,
> this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and therefore we
> don't think they should be allowed to start another JSR until the matter
> is cleared up. No reason to screw around with uncertain and fluid
> rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists, whatever....
>
And now we look like the FSF, playing politics with our vote (which didn't
change anything, since 316 was overwhelmingly adopted 14-1 with one
didn't-vote) :(. It is clear that we have allies (at least until now) with
IBM, Intel, and RedHat from the comments, so could somebody explain to me
why we need to make this a p*ssing contest (and over a three-year old JSR,
that is already practically obsolete, and that we praised to the skies three
years ago)? If the ASF can't start acting like resposible adults on the
JCP, then it is probably better that we withdraw. As it is, we look like a
little kid jumping up and down saying that we are 'going to hold our breath
until we die' :(.
> geir
>
>
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 - sounds like a good starting point Geir.
On Jul 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
> view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
> therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another
> JSR until the matter is cleared up. No reason to screw around with
> uncertain and fluid rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists,
> whatever....
>
> geir
>
>
Re: JSR-316 Vote
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Jul 15, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The last day to vote for JSR 316 - Java EE 6 - is tomorrow.
>
> I know there was a thread earlier on this. I'll go re-read at some
> point, but not now. This list is exhausting.
>
> I'd like to vote "no" simply on the grounds that from our point of
> view, this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA, and
> therefore we don't think they should be allowed to start another
> JSR until the matter is cleared up. No reason to screw around with
> uncertain and fluid rationales for things like NDAs, mail lists,
> whatever....
>
> geir
>