JCP participation/voting guidelines

[Alan Cabrera <ad...@toolazydogs.com>]

A few weeks ago Roy mentioned:

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Apache should vote "No" unless *all* of the following are true:
>
>   1) The specification is completely provided by the JSR publications
>      (i.e., we don't need to jump through some other license hoops
>      in order to read it);
>
>   2) The Specification, RI, and TCK licenses are provided to the EC
>      prior to the vote;
>
>   3) The Specification and TCK licenses allow an open source
>      implementation;
>
>   4) The above licenses are provided at no cost to nonprofit
>      organizations like the ASF; and
>
>   5) The technology defines something useful for Java.
>


This made me wonder if there were some guidelines for JCP participation.

One thing that I was thinking was that it's not ASF's place to give  
an opinion on item 5.  Shouldn't we be neutral on that regard?

Along those lines, do I provide technical opinions on the JSR that  
I'm on? I was thinking that if I had strong opinions on a JSR and I  
am technically competent, shouldn't I sign up as an individual  
contributor?  I don't want to take advantage of using the ASF as an  
easy "in"; I think that expert groups may be loathe to turn down an  
ASF rep.

So, with that said, what are my guidelines as one of the Ralph Naders  
of the JCP?



Regards,
Alan

Re: JCP participation/voting guidelines

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

On Feb 14, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:

> A few weeks ago Roy mentioned:
>
> On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> Apache should vote "No" unless *all* of the following are true:
>>
>>   1) The specification is completely provided by the JSR publications
>>      (i.e., we don't need to jump through some other license hoops
>>      in order to read it);
>>
>>   2) The Specification, RI, and TCK licenses are provided to the EC
>>      prior to the vote;
>>
>>   3) The Specification and TCK licenses allow an open source
>>      implementation;
>>
>>   4) The above licenses are provided at no cost to nonprofit
>>      organizations like the ASF; and
>>
>>   5) The technology defines something useful for Java.
>>
>
>
> This made me wonder if there were some guidelines for JCP  
> participation.
>
> One thing that I was thinking was that it's not ASF's place to give  
> an opinion on item 5.  Shouldn't we be neutral on that regard?

Generally we are at the EC level, but not at the EG level.

>
> Along those lines, do I provide technical opinions on the JSR that  
> I'm on? I was thinking that if I had strong opinions on a JSR and I  
> am technically competent, shouldn't I sign up as an individual  
> contributor?  I don't want to take advantage of using the ASF as an  
> easy "in"; I think that expert groups may be loathe to turn down an  
> ASF rep.
>
> So, with that said, what are my guidelines as one of the Ralph  
> Naders of the JCP?

In my view, yes, your technical opinions count at the EG level.  We  
do send people from relevant tech areas, right?

I'd even vote "no" at EC level on technical grounds if needed, but  
it's very difficult area.  Most EC-level technical arguments  
positioned like #5 really were political in nature (the app server  
vendors trying to kill JDO, for example) - we voted yes, actually on  
the grounds of #5.  For one mid-process vote, we were in the minority.

geir

>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>