On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > on 3/14/02 7:53 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jon, I believe their vote was to allow the proposal to move on to public > > review stage. And I believe this is the _right_ thing to do. > > Why bother? In other words, if after the public review stage, it all ends up > changing again, what was the point of even going forward to the public > review stage?
To get the developer feedback on the proposal ? None of the companies you mentioned voted for the licence, but to let the community participate and send feedback. Which is a good vote. What do you understand by 'public review stage' ? My understanding is that this is the point where whatever the EG discussed behind closed doors, without any feedback from the community, is published and the EG is supposed to get the feedback. The EG or JCP members have no power to make something standard - it's the developers who adopts ( or not ) the specs who have this power. In most cases the 'public review' is used to find spelling errors ( compare most 'public draft' and 'final' versions of the specs ). This means either that the EG is indeed so good that they create the perfect specification, or that nobody care about the spec enough to actually review it, or that the public review is just somethig to give the ilusion that people are involved. So I understand your feeling the the 'public review' means close to nothing in most cases. But that's the fundamental problem with the JCP - not the licence. If a JCP spec ( including that ) doesn't get enough public review and is not able to change (even 180 degree ) based on the feedback it gets from the public, then the process is totally broken, regardless of licence. There is a vote after the public review - and if 90% of the feedback from public is "we'll not implement or use any spec that is released under this licence, but search or create an open and unrestricted standard", then I doubt all those companies will vote the same. As long as the developers review and feedback doesn't play the dominant role in releasing and defining the standard, I do believe the process is broken and will produce mediocre or bad standards. So in a way, I wouldn't mind if the licence is restrictive - it only means the specs will get less chance to become standards, and more chance that an open process will create the real standards. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
