JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]

[Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 

(...)
> It's the compromise we/I willingly make to be able to work inside the 
> process to help shape it the way we/I think it should be shaped.  The 
> only alternative is to try to start another standards body, but I think 
> you will find that, like the other standards bodies, that NDA's will be 
> a part of the process if you want serious players to participate.  One 
> of the big issues surrounding standards is the inclusion/discussion of 
> proprietary information offered by participating entities (companies).  
> Whether or not you like the existence of commercial entities in the 
> process, they are there.
> 

OK, I'll buy the previous paragraph. But that the participants do sign a 
NDA does not mean that the group is silent throughout the process, as it 
often happens with current JSRs. While I can understand that some of the 
discussions should remain secret, I think that partial agreements (or 
blocked areas), roadmaps, current work, etc. could and should be 
communicated, and also feedback asked more frequently. At a bare 
minimum, a JSR should publish something (be it a status report, demo, 
API proposal, open issue list, recount of activity,...) at least every 
three months, and use this information to gather feedback from the 
outside via a public discussion list.

I think the spirit is something along these lines, with the public draft 
phase, etc., but I think the process can be (and sometimes is) seriously 
abused. I also think that the temporal granularity of the process was 
meant to be much smaller than it is becoming, so the concerns I express 
do apply more and more.

Another *constructive* suggestion could be having a different role, 
people that would not be forced to sign a NDA, and thus could only be 
exposed to "public domain" information, but who could be involved in the 
process restricted to this. This would enforce even more the need of 
regular unrestricted feed back. These people could act as "hubs" between 
public lists and the EG.

The whole process reminds me of the bullshit that the European Esprit 
Program became some time ago, where any company could refrain from 
having to justify public money by just saying that the work was "a 
commercial trade". I've played in this field already, and in both sides. ;-)

Regards, (I'm trying to be as much constructive as I can, being in bed 
with a flu and my back aching, pending a NMR test to see if it is 
damaged or not ...)
      Santiago

> geir
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]

[ac...@apache.org]

Extemely well said.

Please get well soon my friend!  :-)

-Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Santiago Gala" <sg...@hisitech.com>
To: "Jakarta General List" <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]


> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
>
> (...)
> > It's the compromise we/I willingly make to be able to work inside the
> > process to help shape it the way we/I think it should be shaped.  The
> > only alternative is to try to start another standards body, but I think
> > you will find that, like the other standards bodies, that NDA's will be
> > a part of the process if you want serious players to participate.  One
> > of the big issues surrounding standards is the inclusion/discussion of
> > proprietary information offered by participating entities (companies).
> > Whether or not you like the existence of commercial entities in the
> > process, they are there.
> >
>
> OK, I'll buy the previous paragraph. But that the participants do sign a
> NDA does not mean that the group is silent throughout the process, as it
> often happens with current JSRs. While I can understand that some of the
> discussions should remain secret, I think that partial agreements (or
> blocked areas), roadmaps, current work, etc. could and should be
> communicated, and also feedback asked more frequently. At a bare
> minimum, a JSR should publish something (be it a status report, demo,
> API proposal, open issue list, recount of activity,...) at least every
> three months, and use this information to gather feedback from the
> outside via a public discussion list.
>
> I think the spirit is something along these lines, with the public draft
> phase, etc., but I think the process can be (and sometimes is) seriously
> abused. I also think that the temporal granularity of the process was
> meant to be much smaller than it is becoming, so the concerns I express
> do apply more and more.
>
> Another *constructive* suggestion could be having a different role,
> people that would not be forced to sign a NDA, and thus could only be
> exposed to "public domain" information, but who could be involved in the
> process restricted to this. This would enforce even more the need of
> regular unrestricted feed back. These people could act as "hubs" between
> public lists and the EG.
>
> The whole process reminds me of the bullshit that the European Esprit
> Program became some time ago, where any company could refrain from
> having to justify public money by just saying that the work was "a
> commercial trade". I've played in this field already, and in both sides.
;-)
>
> Regards, (I'm trying to be as much constructive as I can, being in bed
> with a flu and my back aching, pending a NMR test to see if it is
> damaged or not ...)
>       Santiago
>
> > geir
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]

[Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 

(...) agreed

> 
> Yes - indeed.  The idea is to have more public participation (vote early 
> and often, as they say in Chicago :) in the process w/o the EG having to 
> expand to include only the mildly interested, and w/o having constraints 
> like an NDA placed on the mildly interested participants.
> 

It would bring global health to the process, I would say, even if the 
public participation was restricted to voice and lobbying from the 
outside, with no vote in the process.

> One things I'll say in their defense of general spec lead behavior is 
> that a JSR is a *lot* of work - I have garnered great respect in general 
> for those leading JSR's to successful conclusions, so it's hard to want 
> to dictate a project management style...
> 

I agree, and it is precisely the kind of work that I'm very bad at doing 
(except maybe for detecting incoherent documents, or things like this), 
so I would not take this role eagerly. I also respect them a lot.

But a lot of the work is political, making "minimum agreements", 
unblocking issues, etc. Judicious use of open lists to help promote 
general approaches to problems, to "test the water", or to try to get 
feedback or pressure to pass political blockings could *ease* it, rather 
than the opposite. (I'm quite sure that Stefano, for instance, would 
know how to manage a JSR this way :-)



Regards,
      Santiago


> geir
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:30 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
>
> Agreed, good supporting feedback, and this is something that is a
> current topic of interest in the JCP EC.  We (the members of the EC,
> the ASF being a member) are interested in encouraging openness in the
> process from the start via support for open mail lists, etc, as well as
> more public reviews.  However, it's still up to the JSR leads.  I guess
> one thing I can do as the EC rep is ensure that for every new JSR that
> comes up for a vote for acceptance to continue, I lobby the spec lead /
> EG to make it as open as possible.

Make the open JSR's open. ie) Give me a list of the JSRs which do have
open mail lists and public reviews etc. Especially public reviews in which
the public discuss, not just write-only emails.

Cultivating an image that the ASF, and yourself on behalf of the ASF, are
doing their best to open-up the JCP seems like a good thing.

> > Another *constructive* suggestion could be having a different role,
> > people that would not be forced to sign a NDA, and thus could only be
> > exposed to "public domain" information, but who could be involved in
> > the process restricted to this. This would enforce even more the need
> > of regular unrestricted feed back. These people could act as "hubs"
> > between public lists and the EG.
>
> Yes - indeed.  The idea is to have more public participation (vote
> early and often, as they say in Chicago :) in the process w/o the EG
> having to expand to include only the mildly interested, and w/o having
> constraints like an NDA placed on the mildly interested participants.
>
> One things I'll say in their defense of general spec lead behavior is
> that a JSR is a *lot* of work - I have garnered great respect in
> general for those leading JSR's to successful conclusions, so it's hard
> to want to dictate a project management style...

Good point. Open-ness does lead to mayhem.

Hen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)]

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>]

On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:30 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> (...)
>> It's the compromise we/I willingly make to be able to work inside the 
>> process to help shape it the way we/I think it should be shaped.  The 
>> only alternative is to try to start another standards body, but I 
>> think you will find that, like the other standards bodies, that NDA's 
>> will be a part of the process if you want serious players to 
>> participate.  One of the big issues surrounding standards is the 
>> inclusion/discussion of proprietary information offered by 
>> participating entities (companies).  Whether or not you like the 
>> existence of commercial entities in the process, they are there.
>
> OK, I'll buy the previous paragraph. But that the participants do sign 
> a NDA does not mean that the group is silent throughout the process, 
> as it often happens with current JSRs. While I can understand that 
> some of the discussions should remain secret, I think that partial 
> agreements (or blocked areas), roadmaps, current work, etc. could and 
> should be communicated, and also feedback asked more frequently. At a 
> bare minimum, a JSR should publish something (be it a status report, 
> demo, API proposal, open issue list, recount of activity,...) at least 
> every three months, and use this information to gather feedback from 
> the outside via a public discussion list.

Agreed, good supporting feedback, and this is something that is a 
current topic of interest in the JCP EC.  We (the members of the EC, 
the ASF being a member) are interested in encouraging openness in the 
process from the start via support for open mail lists, etc, as well as 
more public reviews.  However, it's still up to the JSR leads.  I guess 
one thing I can do as the EC rep is ensure that for every new JSR that 
comes up for a vote for acceptance to continue, I lobby the spec lead / 
EG to make it as open as possible.

>
> I think the spirit is something along these lines, with the public 
> draft phase, etc., but I think the process can be (and sometimes is) 
> seriously abused. I also think that the temporal granularity of the 
> process was meant to be much smaller than it is becoming, so the 
> concerns I express do apply more and more.

Yes - you are right.

>
> Another *constructive* suggestion could be having a different role, 
> people that would not be forced to sign a NDA, and thus could only be 
> exposed to "public domain" information, but who could be involved in 
> the process restricted to this. This would enforce even more the need 
> of regular unrestricted feed back. These people could act as "hubs" 
> between public lists and the EG.

Yes - indeed.  The idea is to have more public participation (vote 
early and often, as they say in Chicago :) in the process w/o the EG 
having to expand to include only the mildly interested, and w/o having 
constraints like an NDA placed on the mildly interested participants.

One things I'll say in their defense of general spec lead behavior is 
that a JSR is a *lot* of work - I have garnered great respect in 
general for those leading JSR's to successful conclusions, so it's hard 
to want to dictate a project management style...

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc.                                       203-247-1713(m)
geirm@adeptra.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org