Re: OpenJDK Governing Board CFV: Delay the 2020 Governing Board election by one week?
On 3/6/20 10:22 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > MOTION: Delay this year’s voting period for At-Large Members of the > Governing Board by one week, to start on Tuesday, 24 March. Vote: yes -- Andrew Haley (he/him) Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
OpenJDK Governing Board CFV: New Serviceability Group Lead: Serguei Spitsyn
Vote: yes > On Mar 12, 2019, at 11:00 PM, Iris Clark wrote: > > Serguei Spitsyn was voted in as the new Lead of the Serviceability > Group [1]. > > Governing Board members: Please vote on whether to ratify this change, > as required by the Bylaws [2]. Votes are due in two weeks, by 23:00 > UTC on Wednesday, 27 March 2019. Votes must be cast in the open by > replying to this message. > > For Simple Majority voting instructions, see [3]. > > Iris > > > [1] > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-April/021205.html > [2] https://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#group-lead > [3] https://openjdk.java.net/groups/#lead-vote
Re: CFV: New Group: Compatibility & Specification Review
Vote: yes
Re: OpenJDK Governing Board CFV: New Swing Group Lead: Alexander Scherbatiy
Vote: yes
Re: Bylaw: OpenJDK Members
On 02/17/2015 03:56 PM, dalibor topic wrote: This was indeed discussed before: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.general/3218 Mmm, but with no satisfactory outcome. Time to nuke the rule, methinks. There seems to be no enthusiasm to implement it. Andrew.
Re: Minutes
On 02/03/2014 10:13 AM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: 2014/2/3 11:30 +0100, a...@redhat.com: The GB minutes don't seem to be online. I presume they must have been taken; is this an oversight? Minutes for the past year's worth of GB meetings were taken but have not yet been formatted and sent to the Board for review and approval. We hope to get that done soon. Thanks. I think this delay is a significant problem. We really should get used to the idea of signing off the last meeting's minutes at the start of every meeting. Andrew.
Re: CFV: Group Proposal: Adoption
Vote: yes
Re: CFV: Group Proposal: Adoption
On 12/17/2013 12:20 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: On 12/12/13 7:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: I think this is a reasonable idea, but there are a few questions this raises. Given its agenda, I'd expect the Group to be focused on concrete things, whether that's making it easier for new Participants to find their ways around the OpenJDK community, contribute or provide feedback to OpenJDK Projects, etc. rather then on talk about kicking doors. ;) OK, that makes sense, but it's a fairly limited ambition when compared with the scale of the problem. If the OpenJDK project is open and inviting, then people will surely participate. Java is important, and IME many people like to work on important projects. If they're not participating as much as we'd like, then the lack of a group to show people around is not, IMVHO, the most important reason. Having said that, onboarding has been a problem ever since Java was first freed, and anything to help with that is a good thing. Andrew.
Re: OpenJDK Governing Board CFV: New Swing Group Lead: Pavel Porvatov
On 06/22/2012 07:04 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: The members of the Swing Group have approved Pavel Porvatov as their new Group Lead [1]. Governing Board members: Please vote on whether to ratify this change, as required by the Bylaws [2]. Votes are due in one week, by 19:00 UTC next Friday, 29 June 2012. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this message. Vote: yes
Re: OpenJDK Governing Board CFV: New Hotspot Group Lead: John Coomes
On 04/10/2012 05:11 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: The members of the HotSpot Group have approved John Coomes as their new Group Lead [1]. Vote: yes
Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
On 28/04/11 11:15, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: On 28 April 2011 10:56, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: So, it takes two for tango, and sadly -as a former FSF contributor-, I can´t say I know what the FSF´s true intentions are anymore, and that rants like Andrew´s which start by attacking the governing board contribute very little to a climate of collaboration or moving things forward, unless of course the aim is to create the self-fulfilling prophecy, that is in this case, a fork. I don't see what the FSF has to do with this. I think Fernando is confused by your email address. Andrew.
Re: OpenJDK governing board, constitution
Neal Gafter wrote: On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote: The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a year, is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its non-Sun positions remaining unfilled. The last published meeting minutes were from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB would strive for a draft Constitution by the end of 2008. Who are the seven members of the governing board? Can we please see the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report on the Constitution? The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform. The JCP used to play that role, but there has been little activity in forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years. I've noticed that openjdk7 is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even though it doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the JCP. If openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are added to the platform, I don't see how that can happen. For Java SE 7 to be released there must be a platform specification, and there must be a TCK. openjdk7 is a bunch of packages slated for Java SE 7 that may or may not get to be in the platform. it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge and support that. It would, yes, but it would be a huge change. In the past there have undoubtedly been developments very much like the openjdk7 tree, where platform integration has proceeded prior to the formal platform specification. This is essential: you need to make sure that a design works in a reasonable way before its specification is finalized. The only difference now is that the openjdk7 tree is open. Andrew.
