re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
| As you are on the EG yourself, you know how hard it is to have one word | removed from the next revision of the spec once it gets in :-) | | Just thinking out loud... | | Pier When a culture of discussion comes into conflict with a culture of bureaucracy, debate is not an optimal change instrument. Discussion cultures have evolution as their goal, while bureaucratic cultures have risk reduction and cost distribution as their goals. Bureaucracies can be changed by: 1. localized force (negotiation: private risk private cost distribution) 2. distributed feedback (metrics: public risk public cost distribution) 3. obsolescence (competition: public risk discontinuous costs) Apache is capable of exercising any or all of these, independent of circumstantial parties or objectives. Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
| Software history is replete with creation of new economic tiers. Even | open-source has it's GPL, BSD and countless other camplets. If an | existing organization can't serve multiple audiences, is there room and | reason for a supplemental one? | | | You mean is there room for the crap JCP? Apparently. . People also | continue to run IIS... They just don't yet know any better ;-) Risk is also a function of what your peers are doing. One can know of better options and choose not de-link themselves from the actuarial (financial) safety of a standard. You know that whatever happens to you will happen to the others equally. This predictability is as much a form of community as transparency of code and process. Common pain is no less common because it's pain, rumors of common pleasure not withstanding. | Or you mean an OpenSoftwareStandards.org? No and Yes. Apache already has an earned and defensible position at the boundary of open and closed cooperation, with neighbors like FSF and JCP. There are market gaps for small, code-distributed standards in both geo-regional and skill-vertical industries. Something like: NonAntitrustVendorStandardsForBiggerOpenMarketsAndFood.org | Andy Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re[2]: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
Andy wrote: | Apache has tools that provide quantitative feedback on the development | process. Can any of these be adapted to provide quantitative feedback | on the post-public spec development process, using historical (public) data? | | | And what is the milestone? Creation of lots of needless JSRs? I | suspect the JCP does exactly what Sun intends it to do. That doesn't preclude Apache (or Andy) from systematically benchmarking JCP by Apache values.It certainly happens informally, but we know the benefits (and costs) of process formality. | Is there a subset of Apache members who represent smaller commercial | companies, who won't/can't incur the JCP overhead, but who wish to give | their customers the benefits of inter-vendor portability and test | compliance? | | | And wish for those standards to be blessed and guided by Sun... Nope. I meant that such Apache members could create their own standards to be blessed and guided by themselves and constituents, inheriting values from Apache and the good parts (if any) of the JCP. Compatibility testing and certification have economic value, even to smaller vendors and customers. Apache success in innovation and evolution only increases the economic value of stability (= non-evolution). Software history is replete with creation of new economic tiers. Even open-source has it's GPL, BSD and countless other camplets. If an existing organization can't serve multiple audiences, is there room and reason for a supplemental one? Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gosling online discussion on Fri 14
Read today that Simon Phipps, James Gosling Bill Smith are in an online discussion tomorrow morning, 0900-1030 PST with QA from participants: http://sun.com/nettalk . I've not registered for one of these before, can anyone comment on the format of past events? Is it interactive, is there an NDA, parallel IRC# or weblogs .. what's the convention? Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
Craig M. wrote: | Andy seems to believe that *implementing* a specification (as opposed to | creating one) is not a valid itch to be scratched if he doesn't like the | mechanism by which the specification is created. It's perfectly | reasonable for Andy to decide that for the projects he gets personally | involved in, but it seems awfully arrogant to argue that no one at Apache | should involve themselves in such an implementation project on that basis. It is straightforward to replace brand overloading with brand segmentation, including informal segmentation that is later formalized upon wide adoption. Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re[2]: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
| It is straightforward to replace brand overloading with brand segmentation, | including informal segmentation that is later formalized upon wide | adoption. | | | huh? | | Conor Andy (or Craig or anyone) can fork the single Apache brand to differentiate projects that are community or standards or foo -oriented. If the distinction turns out be predictive (of code quality or innovation or discussion quality or ...), then people will use the - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re[3]: Jakarta: too many similar projects?
I wrote: | Andy (or Craig or anyone) can fork the single Apache brand to differentiate | projects that are community or standards or foo -oriented. If the | distinction turns out be predictive (of code quality or innovation or | discussion | quality or ...), then people will use the sorry about the early send new terminology. The brand is the first interface to the community. Just as new app requirements can improve code refactoring or interface definitions, new audiences can improve organizational refactoring. It's not necessary to jump directly to group policy or reorg, you can use a view to prototype the benefits for your communities of interest. Any set of interactions among people with common interests (incl. NDAs) creates a community. Those within may debate values or objectives, but a community only becomes real via the experiences of *external* people, This is why Pringles should start a WiFi antenna company. Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
Andy wrote: | Yeah, on second thought, its a great idea to remove choice in a project | and instead submit it to a JSR committee and hence Suns conrol, take a | few folks and put them on NDA so that they can't talk about certain | decisions which will affect the project. [** disclaimer: I was a consultant to the team that developed http://sun.com/codingforcurrency . I don't speak for Sun or any past or present client. ] Is the NDA under NDA? Or can someone post a copy? NDA is as descriptive as license. There are many species of NDA and they are subject to evolution, like all social contracts. Yes, a lazy lawyer could draft, You agree (a) not to say anything, and (b) not to say that you agreed to this agreement, and (c) not to acknowledge that this agreement exists, but educated parties don't sign vague and non-specific agreements. Boundaries (physics and law) are improved by documentation. First-party testing is not an efficient means of documentation. Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
I wrote: | Is the NDA under NDA? Or can someone post a copy? Ok, there's no separate NDA, it's part of the standard agreements: http://jcp.org/en/participation/membership Follow-up questions: 1. Is there an Apache-specific, public archive of JCP discussion, including the negotiation of JCP 2.5? This seems to exclude [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Is there a [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? If not, one could be culled from the archives of other lists. 2. Is there an Apache-specific, public archive of the discussion that preceded the decision to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] non-public ? Pier wrote: | Most of the times, in my experience, it all comes down to how receptive | the spec lead is in regards to new ideas coming from outside, and how much | weight he has in his company (the JSR sponsoring company)... | | But my experience is too little to say what happens more often. Are there any metrics on the performance of spec leads, besides: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/withdrawn.html http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/rejected.html Apache has tools that provide quantitative feedback on the development process. Can any of these be adapted to provide quantitative feedback on the post-public spec development process, using historical (public) data? Spec leads need to be JCP members and there's a $5K threshold for commercial companies. That's a large gap between Tier $0 (Apache and fully open) and Tier $5K (JCP and open/closed per above cited agreements). Is there a subset of Apache members who represent smaller commercial companies, who won't/can't incur the JCP overhead, but who wish to give their customers the benefits of inter-vendor portability and test compliance? Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: PMC members, can u help me??
Andy wrote: | documented on the web page... And whats funny what tools do you use | send to various mailing lists...well This is the tool.. thats it.. There's always: You are the tool ... how will you be contributing today? Student wiki or mailing list achieves same result. List members are the tool. By coincidence, there was a student tool here just minutes ago. Rich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
re[2]: velocity lovers...
Re: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10390294901r=1w=2 | Where are we the working class who makes it work in this process? Pawns | in the game. | | -Andy It may be motivating to remember that blog (from the colonies) is a candidate for the empire's OED: http://www.oed.com/public/news/0206.htm Pawns are transparent (landless) and social (ants). http://www.despair.com/sacrifice.html Identity is increasingly social. Opaque societies don't influence dictionaries. http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/locke/ch7-18c.htm#00419 All hail the mighty pawn. Rich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
re[2]: Concern about the future of Apache
Those evaluating re-orgs should revisit Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language, the inspiration for Gabriel's Patterns of Software and OO design patterns: From http://www.patternlanguage.com/leveltwo/patternsframegreen.htm?/leveltwo/../apl/twopanelnlb.htm : --- The language begins with patterns that define towns and communities. These patterns can never be designed or built in one fell swoop - but patient piecemeal growth, designed in such a way that every individual act is always helping to create or generate these larger global patterns, will, slowly and surely, over the years, make a community that has these global patterns in it. --- Social space is not a bug. In the long-term, social identity is polymorphic with respect to semantic identity. Flip through a few centuries of history to find supporting evidence. Consider Apache's external identity, relative to all other open-source projects. Which is more stable: semantic or social identity? An internal re-org may reduce semantic learning (for newbies or external groups) at the expense of mutilating social boundaries. Or not. I don't have enough history in Apache to know the answer. But social space matters. SNA reading: http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/06.php Rich -- http://javaindex.org | I'm aware of that... what does that have to do with the message I | forwarded or the proposed reorganization which makes all jakarta | projects top level projects and phases jakarta out (basically)... | -Andy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:general-unsubscribe;jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:general-help;jakarta.apache.org
re[2]: Differences between Structs and Turbine ???
Berin wrote: | Even when Quick and Dirty takes longer. I tried to convince my boss that | a certain customization required so many fundamental changes that it would | be quicker and easier to develop/maintain if we did it right. He told me | that he would never be able to convince the CEO that was the right choice, | so the Quick and Dirty route was the choice--taking me twice as long to | get it done. Preferred pain is a known pain with an experience-based cap. New and improved pain may promise an average POI (Pain-on-Investment) that is 50% of the familiar pain, but will be assigned a risk profile with unknown maximum pain. If your previous experience confirms that max(NewPain) = max(OldPain), then go ahead and implement NewPain, but make it look like OldPain. If max(NewPain) turns out to be max(OldPain), you're on the hook. But you would have first hand experience to make the call, whereas your boss (and definitely his boss) would not (or they wouldn't object in the first place). One successful implementation of NewPain where max(NewPain) = max(OldPain), while delivering promised improvements, will set a precedent. But someone has to take the risk. And it won't be people twice-removed from the pain. ... in my (painful) experience. Rich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
