Yes, Apache voted no on JSR 317 on the principle that the proposed Specification Lead is in violation of the JSPA by not offering a TCK license without FOU restrictions for Java EE 5. But the OpenJPA community can decide to try to influence the specification that directly affects us.
Individuals from companies on a JCP Expert Group have access to email discussions that are distributed internally via a "lurker" alias. Feedback is sent through an individual representative from that company to the Expert Group.
There would be an advantage for OpenJPA community members who are not privy to an internal lurker alias, to be able to participate in the discussion.
The Specification Lead for JSR 317 would set the participation rules, which under JCP can include Non Disclosure Agreements. Any OpenJPA community member who wanted to participate might be bound by an agreement not to disclose information from the Expert Group discussion.
In order to implement this, we might need a closed Apache-JPA mail alias for discussion and an Expert Group representative to forward comments from the closed alias to the expert group.
Would any OpenJPA community members be interested in participating in the JSR-317 Expert Group under these conditions?
Please send comments to both dev and users aliases. Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
