On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert Simmons wrote:

> > But who speaks for JCP?
> Those who chose to be involved.

I'm not sure I'm conveying the question properly. As an Apache committer,
I am unable to speak on behalf of the ASF. Equally, as a JCP member I
would not be able to speak on behalf of JCP.

> > While you offer a nice brochure view of the JCP, the other side is that
> > the JCP is a large company dominated organisation which conducts its
> > business behind closed doors and has a high cost to effective entry.
> High cost ? Last I checked you could be a voting member for a nominal fee.
> You could be on a single expert comittee for free. Any fees are the bare
> minimum for the administration of the site and services in my opinon.
> Source: http://www.jcp.org/en/participation/membership
> commercial entities: $5000
> educational/non-profit organizations: $2000
> individuals: $0
> existing licensees: $0
> If your company or institution cannot afford those fees than they have bigger
> problems to deal with.

I wouldn't be surprised if 5000 is more than most places spend on tools
for an individual in a year. For a place with a lot of developers, the
money probably quickly vanishes, but small shops are unlikely to spend
such money.

> > An individual can join one project without having to pay ridiculous sums
> > [for the individual] and the individual cannot join a project which is to
> > do with their work for their company [due to an effective NDA in the
> > registration].
> That is the fault of the company, not the JCP. If the company doesnt want you
> giving out their intellectual property than you probably wont be able to
> submit it to the JCP. The jcp intellectual rights rules are there because if
> some bozo joined and submitted intellectual property from microsoft for
> example, the JCP could get sued for releasing it in a JSR. The way it is, you
> give the JCP rights to the info. In which case only people microsoft can sue
> are the errant employees.

I was reading the registration smallprint the other day. If I have an
individual membership, it states that I am not allowed to release
information to my company gained from my membership. So, if I work on JSP
at work, and were to join the JSF JSR, it would seem tricky to work on JSF
at work.

I've also not seen much at the JCP that details what happens to my
individual membership once I finish on a JSR. Is that it? Or am I allowed
one JSR at a time?

> > Projects appear to stagnate in the JCP and others appear to fast track
> > through due to Java?Sun?JCP's marketing needs.
> Thats the bitch of a democracy. Things are voted on in the JCP. If oyu loose
> the vote *shrug* campaign harder next time.

Where are the results of these votes? The site shows the major members of
the JCP voting initially, and then shows the panel of experts voting. I
see no JCP-wide voting.

> > Do the JCP have official PR people to show why the JCP is not the dark
> > picture it is often portrayed as?
> Hmm never seen it protrayed that way. Im sure some have that opinion but it
> isnt common enough to qualify as "often".

I can't say I've ever seen an article or blog that speaks lovingly of the
JCP, whereas I've seen quite a few that portray it negatively.

> > Or is it a loose federation. In which
> > case, should the ASF be picking up those threads as a spokeperson for the
> > JCP
> Hmm, that would be tough. Sort of like speaking for the entire United
> Nations. Dissenters are abounds.

And yet to use your anology, the ASF are on the Security Council, so would
seem a major speaker for the JCP process. Indeed, due to the publicity
over the ASF's stance to open up the JCP process, they would seem a
natural speaker.

> > and explaining just why the ASF and Doug Lea are able to stop the huge
> > corporates from turning Java into some system designed to make them money
> > and not a better future for Java.
> *Yanks the soapbox out from under his feet.* Your view on things is
> rediculously naive. If you think one person or one company can "stop the huge
> coporates" than you need a reality check.

I'm happy to accept a cynical: They can't be :)

> The thing that stops them is
> popular opinion. If they try to do somethign lame, he JCP smacks them in the
> teeth for it. Life is grand. The JCP does have its issues but they are of a
> different nature than you percieve.

Popular opinion of the JCP members? How many members are individual
developers? Are developers working for corporate members able to discuss
at the JCP, or are they held back by having to go through a single legal
official for that company?

> The drive to open source the JDK is being
> driven not by an attempt to stop the corporations but by a growing belief
> that Sun doesnt have the resources needed to handle all of the changes in
> java.

Where are the mail archives to back this up? Where do the members of the
JCP discuss the state of the Java world?

> > To those of us who have not seen the insides of the JCP, it looks like a
> > large, probably political and argumentative body of powerful entities.
> So join it. Whats stopping you?

Lack of money, lack of a JSR to join, and lack of awareness that there was
any cross-JCP community in existence to join.

> > While it may be a good thing compared to Microsoft's dictatorship, it's
> > almost definitely less efficient, and not the open system it should be.
> Microsoft does what it wants and when it wants. (notice the period) When .NET
> is 2 years old and starts to show the defects and missing features we have
> seen in the JDK, microsoft will fix it when they get good and damn well ready
> to. Further, if you think they arent doing .NET to dive their sales of
> windows than we will have to upgrade you from naive to stupid.

They're reacting to the fact that their languages were looking pathetic
compared to Java. In 2 years .Net will start to get lumbered down with
hacks and additions and in 5 years it'll be as bad as the current Windows
stuff is now. Thankfully the current clean MS system seems to be worrying
enough that Java is making more aggressive language changes.

> Microsoft has
> shown *REPEATEDLY* to be an unethical company that believes it is above the
> law.

I'm an Apple/Linux user. I'm currently using Windows at work in an effort
to make sure I continue true to the nature of being able to develop on any
platform. Being a pawn in Jobs' surprise plans is not much more fun than
in Gates' empire building.

> You have a choice. Go to .NET and leave your business, economic and personal
> future to your trust in Microsoft.

Reality is, that while an MS job is not very exciting for the next 5
years, it's probably quite safe. Tell that to the Ruby developer working
on the next big thing.

> Alternatively you could stick with an
> admitedly flawed but still functional and respected process in java. Pick
> number 1 and you risk proving Orwell correct. No thanks.

Or I could raise a voice in the hope of seeing a better choice. It still
dissapoints me that Perl users gets the Apocalypse and the Exogesis for
Perl 6, while us Java users get a bit of legality at the JCP and a few
years of rumours.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to