I didn't have the time yet to review the new rules, so I don't comment on this now, but I consider the effort that you just explained very welcomed.
I also noticed that Oracle is hiring someone to bring relationships between community and the Steward back to a good neighbouroud state. While I find a bit sad that such a position must be filled again (despite we had good people in similar roles in the past) I think this is definitely a good step in the right direction. I believe we can start building from this foundation, even if the doubts expressed by Andrews will need to be considered and addressed. Mario -- Sent from HTC Desire... pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF http://www.icedrobot.org Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/ ----- Reply message ----- Da: "Doug Lea" <d...@cs.oswego.edu> Data: ven, mag 20, 2011 16:13 Oggetto: OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Second Public Draft A: <gb-discuss@openjdk.java.net> On 05/19/11 18:51, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > ... In summary, this seems worse, to me, than the > original. Hi Andrew, Is there any chance you could rework such comments to instead explain which changes would be required for you to vote in favor of bylaws? This would be very helpful. Also, responding here to your annou...@openjdk.java.net question: > I thought you weren't allowed to use the interim guidelines any more? > -- As several of us mentioned, the GB was opposed to indefinitely using old rules for new projects under the possibility of indefinite legal review stalls. But now that we have a definite schedule for ratification, we agree that living under old rules for a finite period for JDK8 makes sense, and is our response to the unhappiness expressed by some on this list. -Doug
