Simon Phipps wrote:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 19:09, Andy Tripp wrote:
What has changed so that a constitution is no longer needed?
Who said it wasn't needed?
I'm deducing that you believe that a constitution is not needed, because
the GB is the one who was supposed to create it, it hasn't, and that seems to
be OK
with you. Do you think it's needed or not?
It's just that the only dispute that has
arisen so far appears to be this one,
Naturally, no issues are going to "arise" if there's nowhere for them to go.
Closures are a good example. As you know, there are several proposals and
at least one implementation out there. At this point, it looks like Neal
could probably get BGGA closures into openjdk just by committing the code.
Could that code then flow into the JDK (without a JSR) or not?
and experience elsewhere shows
that creating governance in a vacuum leads to bad decisions. What
actually is the need precipitating your passion, beyond an arbitrary
date passing (through, I agree, apparent neglect)?
I want to know if the JDK is now in the process of forking into
a) the JCP-controlled JDK, which at this point looks like it may never have a
"7" release
b) OpenJDK/IcedTea, self-controlled, with ongoing changes.
For me, it's entirely academic, but I'm sure someone like Neal wants to know
where he should put his efforts. And I would think Doug Leah would not be too
happy
to hear that all his GB efforts are for nil.
So again, I ask "what has changed?" Who decided that a GB was needed, wrote up
an
OpenJDK charter, established a GB to write a constitution, and has now changed
his mind?
Has the entire GB decided not to bother with a constitution?
Where there discussions? Was there a vote?
I guess I'm just curious.
Andy
S.
