You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> on 2007/07/06 20:48:44 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Sun knew Apache was an open source organization. Why should the expect
it to vote for things that aren't conducive to open source when it uses
Apache to legitimize the JCP? That logic baffles me...Taking the high
road is bending over? Who are we? Congress?
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I really don't like the "vote against" component. IMHO, that is
>>> disruptive and will give us an interesting reputation. I would
>>> recommend we simply pull out of JSRs that don't play by the rules.
>>>
>>> I just wouldn't participate, not be a road block.
>>>
>> We have a vote within the Executive Committee. Hence, why should we
>> abdicate our responsibility to vote in line with our own policies?
>>
>>
>
> Because we are invited to the committee based on our technical acumen.
> If we change our votes that are supposed to be based on the technical
> components to -1s for political reasons (or reasons that are not based
> on technical merits), then we will be viewed as activists, and likely
> won't be invited in the future. The invites should be based on our
> technical capabilities. Whether we choose to accept being on these JSRs
> based on our policies is our choice, but lets not become a roadblock.
> Lets take the high road.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>> AFAIK, JCP votes are majority - not requiring unanimous consent;
>> though I have heard that Sun wields veto authority on certain votes.
>> -- justin
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Let's not get bogged down in the procedural details or we'll never reach
> a consensus. And we WILL be colored as nutso fanatics just like OSI is
> being colored like nutso fanatics because they've been taking a stand
> against companies calling software clearly licensed in contradiction
> with the OSD "open source".
Bingo ;-) That was really where I was coming from. Lets do what we
need to do, but lets do it right...and I think we are ;-)
> Retroactivity
> 6. If Apache takes a stance on these things do we apply it to ALL work
> or NEW work only?
This is where my concerns begin to form. Since we are already a part of
JSRs that are in effect, I think we need to either wave them, or back
out gracefully.
I really want to know what the projects who are affected think and like
to hear from them.
Jeff
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Let's not get bogged down in the procedural details or we'll never reach
a consensus. And we WILL be colored as nutso fanatics just like OSI is
being colored like nutso fanatics because they've been taking a stand
against companies calling software clearly licensed in contradiction
with the OSD "open source". This is just how the game is played, sad
but true.
At core, what is on the table is:
NDAs
1. Apache taking a stance against NDAs in the formation of the "open
standard" specification?
2. Apache taking a stance against NDAs in negotiating the terms of the
TCK -- or really up front licensing terms for TCKs that are compatible
with open source?
3. Apache taking a stance against NDAs in regards to actually performing
the test?
TCKs
4. As a side issue since the TCK is the final arbitrator of the
specification should it also be open? (I think that was Roy, hopefully
my paraphrase doesn't botch it)
5. Apache taking a stance against TCKs that have open source
incompatible license restrictions?
Retroactivity
6. If Apache takes a stance on these things do we apply it to ALL work
or NEW work only?
I view the "when" the negative or abstaining vote is taken to be a
procedural detail that we can work out after we come to a consensus on
the core. Am I missing anything?
-Andy
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Ok...again...I think we have our wires crossed. I am *not* opposed to
> abstaining the formulation of the JSR based on licensing issues. I
> think that goes hand in hand with your director analogy and voting on
> something based on business as usual. I *am* opposed to voting -1 when
> the JSR has bee established and the votes internally are technical in
> nature. Perhaps I read Matt's write up wrong:
>
> "Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
> that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
> implements the specification or the consequences of testing that imposes
> use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with the AL 2.0 the
> ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."
>
> Maybe I read this as all too over reaching regarding the JSR. Vote
> against the formulation of the JSR, but once we are on it and it becomes
> technical, then I think we are in a different situation, and we are best
> to just pull out. *That* is my point.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>> Ralph
>>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> "Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
> that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
> implements the specification or the consequences of testing that
> imposes
> use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with the AL
> 2.0 the
> ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."
>
> Maybe I read this as all too over reaching regarding the JSR. Vote
> against the formulation of the JSR, but once we are on it and it
> becomes
> technical, then I think we are in a different situation, and we are
> best
> to just pull out. *That* is my point.
>
Perhaps some wording to clarify this is about new JSRs. The comment
was never intended to be retroactive. That would be just plain silly :)
Although, I'm confused about the voting process at the JCP. How can
Sun revise the legal issues without invalidating everyone's vote?
Seems that the legal issues are a fundamental part of the formulation
of a JSR. Looking at this: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4216
more red would have been a clear direction as all the grey looks a
bit timid. Perhaps its more political niceness. If Sun had not
withdrawn the JSR would it have passed with two yeses and all all the
abstains?
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok...again...I think we have our wires crossed. I am *not* opposed to
> abstaining the formulation of the JSR based on licensing issues. I
> think that goes hand in hand with your director analogy and voting on
> something based on business as usual. I *am* opposed to voting -1 when
> the JSR has bee established and the votes internally are technical in
> nature. Perhaps I read Matt's write up wrong:
>
> "Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
> that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
> implements the specification or the consequences of testing that imposes
> use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with the AL 2.0 the
> ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."
>
> Maybe I read this as all too over reaching regarding the JSR. Vote
> against the formulation of the JSR, but once we are on it and it becomes
> technical, then I think we are in a different situation, and we are best
> to just pull out. *That* is my point.
>
>
That is all well and good, but the point I keep hearing here is that
participants don't know what the licensing terms will be when the JSR is
initiated. As I understand it, the Spec lead gets to set the rules and
apparently often doesn't publish the licensing for the TCK until late in
the game or perhaps even after the JSR is approved. If my understanding
is correct, then I don't see how the ASF could ever possibly vote Yes on
such a JSR, even when the vote is supposed to be just on technical merits.
In other words, once the licensing issues are agreed upon I would agree
with your position - all votes should then be just on technical grounds.
Ralph
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> When does a vote on a JSR take place on licensing terms? I suggest you
> re-review http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4216 and look at the
> comments. Here you have most of the participants abstaining due to
> licensing issues, not on the technical merits of interfaces or
> annotations. From what I can see, all that is being suggested is that
> the ASF continue to do this whenever it is necessary with one change
> being a No vote instead of an abstention.
>
Ok...again...I think we have our wires crossed. I am *not* opposed to
abstaining the formulation of the JSR based on licensing issues. I
think that goes hand in hand with your director analogy and voting on
something based on business as usual. I *am* opposed to voting -1 when
the JSR has bee established and the votes internally are technical in
nature. Perhaps I read Matt's write up wrong:
"Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
implements the specification or the consequences of testing that imposes
use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with the AL 2.0 the
ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."
Maybe I read this as all too over reaching regarding the JSR. Vote
against the formulation of the JSR, but once we are on it and it becomes
technical, then I think we are in a different situation, and we are best
to just pull out. *That* is my point.
Jeff
> Ralph
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Wait...I think we have our lines crossed somewhere...if the other
> directors are voting on whether we do business as usual or not, then
> absolutely yes, vote the -1.
>
> If the other directors are voting on some interfaces and annotations,
> and we vote -1 based on doing business as usual, that doesn't seem real
> appropriate to me...
>
>
When does a vote on a JSR take place on licensing terms? I suggest you
re-review http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4216 and look at the
comments. Here you have most of the participants abstaining due to
licensing issues, not on the technical merits of interfaces or
annotations. From what I can see, all that is being suggested is that
the ASF continue to do this whenever it is necessary with one change
being a No vote instead of an abstention.
Ralph
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I fail to see how your analogy to congress (and bending over)
>> plays out here.
>>
>> It really comes down to how you want to be viewed outside of Apache. Do
>> we want to be viewed as the activists who block doctors from going to
>> abortion clinics because we are against abortion? Or do we want to say,
>> "hey, we don't like the way you do business, therefore we will be happy
>> to play when you guys get it together, but until then we would rather
>> not be a part of this." How do you want Apache to be viewed by their
>> peers?
>>
>>
> That is exactly the point. We aren't standing outside the entrance
> blocking doctors from coming in. We are one of the members of the
> clinic's board of directors. So what if all the other directors vote to
> continue to do business as usual. If we don't agree then as someone with
> a right to vote we should vote according to our principles, not
> according to the majority so we won't make waves.
Wait...I think we have our lines crossed somewhere...if the other
directors are voting on whether we do business as usual or not, then
absolutely yes, vote the -1.
If the other directors are voting on some interfaces and annotations,
and we vote -1 based on doing business as usual, that doesn't seem real
appropriate to me...
>
> Ralph
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Sorry, I fail to see how your analogy to congress (and bending over)
> plays out here.
>
> It really comes down to how you want to be viewed outside of Apache. Do
> we want to be viewed as the activists who block doctors from going to
> abortion clinics because we are against abortion? Or do we want to say,
> "hey, we don't like the way you do business, therefore we will be happy
> to play when you guys get it together, but until then we would rather
> not be a part of this." How do you want Apache to be viewed by their
> peers?
>
>
That is exactly the point. We aren't standing outside the entrance
blocking doctors from coming in. We are one of the members of the
clinic's board of directors. So what if all the other directors vote to
continue to do business as usual. If we don't agree then as someone with
a right to vote we should vote according to our principles, not
according to the majority so we won't make waves.
Ralph
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
> Ummm...no...I clearly am not very good at getting my point across. I
> said "leave" if they don't work with policies that are acceptable to us.
> Don't collaborate, don't lend the good name, and don't
> legitimatize...just leave the JCP.
>
>
I don't disagree with that, but we have to find a consensus in here
somewhere so I think both for the recent proposals are good starting
points (minus shoring up some of the "may not sign NDA" type language in
the recent one nor do I think it is all that regrettable to vote against
bad things)
-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: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>> We can agree to disagree on this point. We can be viewed as a true open
>> source organization, and still stand our ground. If you truly don't
>> want to be a Quisling, then don't collaborate with the enemy...it's
>> simple. But don't put us so Apache is viewed as an acitivist...this
>> will hurt us in the future from being part of organizations or getting
>> "elected" because of fear that we will throw a tantrum if we don't like
>> how things are run. Don't want to be a Quisling? Exit the JCP.
>>
>>
> I never joined it for this reason. So you're arguing that Apache should
> collaborate and lend its good name to and legitimize an organization
> that creates "open standards" that aren't implementable in open source
> and aren't even "open"?
Ummm...no...I clearly am not very good at getting my point across. I
said "leave" if they don't work with policies that are acceptable to us.
Don't collaborate, don't lend the good name, and don't
legitimatize...just leave the JCP.
> That it should not stand in the way of them
> being associated with its good name because it would look bad if it was
> an "activist" for open source? I agree that if Apache cannot change the
> JCP soon that it should exit the JCP.
> -Andy
>>> -Andy
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> We can agree to disagree on this point. We can be viewed as a true open
> source organization, and still stand our ground. If you truly don't
> want to be a Quisling, then don't collaborate with the enemy...it's
> simple. But don't put us so Apache is viewed as an acitivist...this
> will hurt us in the future from being part of organizations or getting
> "elected" because of fear that we will throw a tantrum if we don't like
> how things are run. Don't want to be a Quisling? Exit the JCP.
>
>
I never joined it for this reason. So you're arguing that Apache should
collaborate and lend its good name to and legitimize an organization
that creates "open standards" that aren't implementable in open source
and aren't even "open"? That it should not stand in the way of them
being associated with its good name because it would look bad if it was
an "activist" for open source? I agree that if Apache cannot change the
JCP soon that it should exit the JCP.
-Andy
>> -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: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I fail to see how your analogy to congress (and bending over)
>> plays out here.
>>
>> It really comes down to how you want to be viewed outside of Apache. Do
>> we want to be viewed as the activists who block doctors from going to
>> abortion clinics because we are against abortion? Or do we want to say,
>> "hey, we don't like the way you do business, therefore we will be happy
>> to play when you guys get it together, but until then we would rather
>> not be a part of this." How do you want Apache to be viewed by their
>> peers?
> A great reason to participate as an individual and not as a member of
> Apache. I want Apache to be viewed as true to open source organization
> not as a Quisling. How Jeff Genender is viewed ought to be on his own
> individual participation.
We can agree to disagree on this point. We can be viewed as a true open
source organization, and still stand our ground. If you truly don't
want to be a Quisling, then don't collaborate with the enemy...it's
simple. But don't put us so Apache is viewed as an acitivist...this
will hurt us in the future from being part of organizations or getting
"elected" because of fear that we will throw a tantrum if we don't like
how things are run. Don't want to be a Quisling? Exit the JCP.
>
> -Andy
>
Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I fail to see how your analogy to congress (and bending over)
> plays out here.
>
> It really comes down to how you want to be viewed outside of Apache. Do
> we want to be viewed as the activists who block doctors from going to
> abortion clinics because we are against abortion? Or do we want to say,
> "hey, we don't like the way you do business, therefore we will be happy
> to play when you guys get it together, but until then we would rather
> not be a part of this." How do you want Apache to be viewed by their
> peers?
A great reason to participate as an individual and not as a member of
Apache. I want Apache to be viewed as true to open source organization
not as a Quisling. How Jeff Genender is viewed ought to be on his own
individual participation.
-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: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Sun knew Apache was an open source organization. Why should the expect
> it to vote for things that aren't conducive to open source when it uses
> Apache to legitimize the JCP? That logic baffles me...Taking the high
> road is bending over? Who are we? Congress?
>
Sorry, I fail to see how your analogy to congress (and bending over)
plays out here.
It really comes down to how you want to be viewed outside of Apache. Do
we want to be viewed as the activists who block doctors from going to
abortion clinics because we are against abortion? Or do we want to say,
"hey, we don't like the way you do business, therefore we will be happy
to play when you guys get it together, but until then we would rather
not be a part of this." How do you want Apache to be viewed by their
peers?
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/6/07, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really don't like the "vote against" component. IMHO, that is
>>>> disruptive and will give us an interesting reputation. I would
>>>> recommend we simply pull out of JSRs that don't play by the rules.
>>>>
>>>> I just wouldn't participate, not be a road block.
>>>>
>>> We have a vote within the Executive Committee. Hence, why should we
>>> abdicate our responsibility to vote in line with our own policies?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because we are invited to the committee based on our technical acumen.
>> If we change our votes that are supposed to be based on the technical
>> components to -1s for political reasons (or reasons that are not based
>> on technical merits), then we will be viewed as activists, and likely
>> won't be invited in the future. The invites should be based on our
>> technical capabilities. Whether we choose to accept being on these JSRs
>> based on our policies is our choice, but lets not become a roadblock.
>> Lets take the high road.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>> AFAIK, JCP votes are majority - not requiring unanimous consent;
>>> though I have heard that Sun wields veto authority on certain votes.
>>> -- justin
>>>
>
>