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: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
| 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. yes. 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. Exactly. 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). here: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/tests/junit/ 408 and counting. 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 ;-) Or you mean an OpenSoftwareStandards.org? Thanks, Andy Rich - 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]
Re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
Rich Persaud wrote: 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? Not that I'm aware of. I pointed (in a very positive tone post) to some possible improvements (non NDA experts having staged access, more public drafts, having shorter cycles) that could improve the process. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06951.html I was thinking specifically in JSR168, a more than one year blackout. 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). You can go as individual (Not Apache, not Company) and this is 0 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? This third question is really two: * The spec is public once public-drafted * compliance comes *after* there is a standard to test against. I'm not sure on how difficult/expensive it would be for a non-Apache product. Rich - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
Rich Persaud wrote: 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. No. Should there be? Subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is only open to members and binds you to Apache's agreements with Sun including NDAs. A [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been suggested but it is likely that a synonym called [EMAIL PROTECTED] would achieve the same effect. 2. Is there an Apache-specific, public archive of the discussion that preceded the decision to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] non-public ? Read the answer to the above. 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? And what is the milestone? Creation of lots of needless JSRs? I suspect the JCP does exactly what Sun intends it to do. 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? And wish for those standards to be blessed and guided by Sun... Nope. -Andy Rich - 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]
Re: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Rich Persaud wrote: 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. No. Should there be? Subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is only open to members and binds you to Apache's agreements with Sun including NDAs. Right on the first half. Wrong on the second. When the ASF as a whole decides to participate in agreements, it does so as a whole (i.e., ASF==members). Subscribing to the mailing list does not make you any more or less bound, it simply allows you to provide some input into the process. - Sam Ruby - 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: JCP NDA (was: too many similar projects?)
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 01:32 AM, Rich Persaud wrote: 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. I keep offering to setup [EMAIL PROTECTED], but there never is much interest. Sam? Can you setup that list please? Make me the moderator and we'll see what happens 2. Is there an Apache-specific, public archive of the discussion that preceded the decision to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] non-public ? No - because the ASF, as a member of the EC, has signed the agreements that require us to keep the information about our JCP work non-public. Thus, we can't open that list. I, as the current EC representative, submit things to that list which are confidential to the EC, and we have discussions on that list which are private to the ASF. Nothing sinister going on there, but we are just respecting the rules to which we have agreed. And despite the closed aspects of the JCP, I think it's vital that the ASF remain a participant. Apaches has a record for positive change on the JCP, and will continue to push for change in line with our values and philosophy, something we can only do while participating. geir 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] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-956-2604(w) Adeptra, Inc. 203-434-2093(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 203-247-1713(m) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
