Extemely well said. Please get well soon my friend! :-)
-Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Santiago Gala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: JCP Process [Was nice ;-)] > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > > (...) > > It's the compromise we/I willingly make to be able to work inside the > > process to help shape it the way we/I think it should be shaped. The > > only alternative is to try to start another standards body, but I think > > you will find that, like the other standards bodies, that NDA's will be > > a part of the process if you want serious players to participate. One > > of the big issues surrounding standards is the inclusion/discussion of > > proprietary information offered by participating entities (companies). > > Whether or not you like the existence of commercial entities in the > > process, they are there. > > > > OK, I'll buy the previous paragraph. But that the participants do sign a > NDA does not mean that the group is silent throughout the process, as it > often happens with current JSRs. While I can understand that some of the > discussions should remain secret, I think that partial agreements (or > blocked areas), roadmaps, current work, etc. could and should be > communicated, and also feedback asked more frequently. At a bare > minimum, a JSR should publish something (be it a status report, demo, > API proposal, open issue list, recount of activity,...) at least every > three months, and use this information to gather feedback from the > outside via a public discussion list. > > I think the spirit is something along these lines, with the public draft > phase, etc., but I think the process can be (and sometimes is) seriously > abused. I also think that the temporal granularity of the process was > meant to be much smaller than it is becoming, so the concerns I express > do apply more and more. > > Another *constructive* suggestion could be having a different role, > people that would not be forced to sign a NDA, and thus could only be > exposed to "public domain" information, but who could be involved in the > process restricted to this. This would enforce even more the need of > regular unrestricted feed back. These people could act as "hubs" between > public lists and the EG. > > The whole process reminds me of the bullshit that the European Esprit > Program became some time ago, where any company could refrain from > having to justify public money by just saying that the work was "a > commercial trade". I've played in this field already, and in both sides. ;-) > > Regards, (I'm trying to be as much constructive as I can, being in bed > with a flu and my back aching, pending a NMR test to see if it is > damaged or not ...) > Santiago > > > geir > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
