On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:34 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 06/01/2011 11:10 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 14:51 -0700, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > >> The second public draft of the OpenJDK Community Bylaws is now > >> available [1], with an accompanying Q&A document [2]. > >> > >> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09 > >> [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/qanda.html > > > > Thanks for the changes made. Most look positive and well thought > > out. This draft is certainly an improvement over the previous one. > > There was just one change that is a step backwards. > > > > gb-members can no longer be just participants, but need to be > > contributors. Contributors are in this draft still defined as being > > those who assign all their rights to Oracle. Does Oracle really need > > the rights to re-license the gb-board minutes to other companies so > > they can make closed and proprietary derivatives of the documented > > processes of the community? > > I'm not sure I really understand this objection. Surely you can't be > an OpenJDK contributor unless you have signed the OCA. So, the only > way that you could be a member of the governing board and not have > signed the OCA would be to be a non-participant: someone who does not > work on OpenJDK. Do we actually want people who don't work on OpenJDK > on the GB?
There are "Participants", who work on OpenJDK that don't have signed the OCA. That is just how the Bylaws define them.
