On Jan 8, 2009, at 16:47, Andrew Haley wrote:
So, the less the steering committee does, the better. An active OpenJDK governance board and a "constitution", it hopefully would not have affectedour work at all. Their job is to keep out of the way of the people doing real work. They've been doing this quite well.
I agree. I'm not 100% happy that there have been no meetings, but I do feel that the overall goal we agreed - to make sure that any kind of committee would stay out of the way of the actual work, and that we'd wait until it was clear what the need was until acting - still seems the right one and seems to have been achieved by default. It may well be smart to keep going like this rather than create some document for the sake of having it.
On Jan 15, 2009, at 19:58, Neal Gafter wrote:
The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform.
There's already code in the wider OpenJDK community that's experimental or pragmatic and the world hasn't ended (in fact the Java platform is now freely available on Linux) so I'm not sure I understand why this is relevant to an open source community. I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mozilla has governance statements about adherence to W3C process, for example.
S.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
