From whiteadam@example.net Sun Jun 03 12:19:38 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 60792 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 12:19:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 12:19:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 86812 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:19:34 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 86732 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:19:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Delivered-To: moderator for whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 36694 invoked by uid 99); 29 May 2007 18:00:25 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dain Sundstrom <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 10:59:57 -0700 To: whiteadam@example.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR this time (Thank you Geir and others). -dain On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area > of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP > before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions. > > BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as > "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways? > > Andrus > > > On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on >> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here) >> >> geir >> >> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an >>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion. >>> >>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an >>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My >>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is obvious >>> (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things of in EJB >>> is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much >>> of the xml schema, packaging, etc). >>> >>> -David >> >> > From whiteadam@example.net Sun Jun 03 12:38:30 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 64828 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 12:38:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 12:38:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 97180 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:38:28 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 97070 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:38:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 97061 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2007 12:38:27 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:38:27 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO vorsha.objectstyle.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:38:22 -0700 Received: (qmail 11897 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 12:38:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?JC?????IPv888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4:1?) (83.161.120.155) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 12:38:01 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andrus Adamchik <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:38:03 +0300 To: whiteadam@example.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Dain, Interesting... IMO that's a good decision. So is this also awaiting a submission from Sun? I'll definitely prefer to be involved with this specific JSR, rather than the whole JEE6. Andrus On May 29, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR > this time (Thank you Geir and others). > > -dain > > On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > >> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the >> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the >> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful >> contributions. >> >> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as >> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways? >> >> Andrus >> >> >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> >>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on >>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here) >>> >>> geir >>> >>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>> >>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an >>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an >>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My >>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is >>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things >>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, >>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc). >>>> >>>> -David >>> >>> >> > > From whiteadam@example.net Sun Jun 03 12:43:35 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 66515 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 12:43:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 99610 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:33 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 99507 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 99498 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:33 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:43:33 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 83.161.120.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of whiteadam@example.net) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mxout-03.mxes.net) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:43:29 -0700 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (unknown [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D2E51931 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:43:06 -0400 To: whiteadam@example.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yes. There will be a separate one. (I still fondly recall that J1 where this was a hot item, being surrounded by many of the EG in the tunnel between Moscone N and Moscone S, being told that this was simply and utterly technically impossible...) geir On May 29, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR > this time (Thank you Geir and others). > > -dain > > On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > >> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the >> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the >> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful >> contributions. >> >> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as >> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways? >> >> Andrus >> >> >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> >>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on >>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here) >>> >>> geir >>> >>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>> >>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an >>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an >>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My >>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is >>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things >>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, >>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc). >>>> >>>> -David >>> >>> >> > From whiteadam@example.net Sun Jun 03 12:43:57 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 66859 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 12:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 99916 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:56 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 99838 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 99829 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2007 12:43:56 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:43:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 83.161.120.155 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of whiteadam@example.net) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mxout-03.mxes.net) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:43:52 -0700 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (unknown [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6435190F for <whiteadam@example.net>; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:43:33 -0400 To: whiteadam@example.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: > Hi Dain, > > Interesting... IMO that's a good decision. So is this also awaiting > a submission from Sun? I'll definitely prefer to be involved with > this specific JSR, rather than the whole JEE6. Yes, the whole pile is being held up, I think. We should see it soon though. geir > > Andrus > > > On May 29, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR >> this time (Thank you Geir and others). >> >> -dain >> >> On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >> >>> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the >>> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the >>> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful >>> contributions. >>> >>> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as >>> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways? >>> >>> Andrus >>> >>> >>> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on >>>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here) >>>> >>>> geir >>>> >>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an >>>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for >>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an >>>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My >>>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is >>>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things >>>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, >>>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc). >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From whiteadam@example.net Tue Jun 05 12:17:11 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 60145 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 12:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 36058 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 12:17:08 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 35947 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 12:17:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 35938 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jun 2007 12:17:07 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 05:17:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO colossus.hpl.hp.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 05:17:02 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [83.161.120.155]) by colossus.hpl.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F072C6BA42 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:16:40 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: whiteadam@example.net Received: from colossus.hpl.hp.com ([83.161.120.155]) by localhost (colossus.hpl.hp.com [83.161.120.155]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id c9fvodDxtS25 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:16:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from ha-node-br3.hpl.hp.com (ha-node-br3.hpl.hp.com [83.161.120.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by colossus.hpl.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FC16BA36 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:16:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (chamonix.hpl.hp.com [83.161.120.155]) by ha-node-br3.hpl.hp.com (8.14.1/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l55CGP24029704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <whiteadam@example.net>; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:16:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:16:25 +0100 From: Steve Loughran <whiteadam@example.net> User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HPL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-HPL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HPL-MailScanner-From: whiteadam@example.net X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > if that one company wants to see the spec go a direction > favorable to their product line, for example. (see "EJB - session bean / > entity bean") Surely "oracle beans" and "IBM beans" as rumour has it they were once known as during the EJB1 spec days From whiteadam@example.net Tue Jun 05 14:27:50 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 7072 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 14:27:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 14:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 59302 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 14:27:52 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 59223 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2007 14:27:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 59214 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jun 2007 14:27:51 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:27:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:27:47 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id l31so189288ugc for <whiteadam@example.net>; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GWcJkOliUs9hkmrJ6JK0HEIxqz2E/Or/F/YJCPqpJADDRSC6y7rwcEfnkesbiGz3SORB/J4fJyZAL8CrY1BrYlPPysTCcOLdEPw8cRKKXYgSeNBWo7/GAR3bay4SqZjHKbnoLH770+XPWHOC/9DTz7pCkAvu5VoBigMOxM89T3c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Yc9JnZEPI1RpkMqW8qVusTwQUN5SjNQlUGpEheKKJonnAo3FkjxL19/721iAOjXNZc+CKhZdwENhZHy9BzBstuRVh4d++lcyH4SdhknQ2wg6QgW70gvKzYDzjjbMK9Uc8HMaC2dNUi5vHwCdQFLuBcDSJGrC6ZXMFAq30TDMdUI= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id s6mr2472372hue.1181053645854; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:27:25 +0200 From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> Sender: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: JSR 314 - JSF 2.0 In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <whiteadam@example.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 15e880499057ebd4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Any news on this? I today found this: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4254 -Matthias On 5/29/07, Matthias Wessendorf <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I just saw this JSR and I am wondering, why Apache isn't part of it. > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314 > > Any ideas ? > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org From whiteadam@example.net Sun Jun 10 23:27:38 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 3517 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2007 23:27:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2007 23:27:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 30067 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jun 2007 23:27:36 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 29971 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jun 2007 23:27:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 29958 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jun 2007 23:27:35 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:27:35 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.sunstarsys.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:27:30 -0700 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (mumonkan.sunstarsys.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.sunstarsys.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l5ANR8BE019539 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:27:09 -0400 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (whiteadam@example.net [83.161.120.155]) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-4) with ESMTP id l5ANR3kg013019 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:27:03 -0400 Received: (from joe@localhost) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l5ANR31B013018; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:27:03 -0400 From: Joe Schaefer <whiteadam@example.net> To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:27:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> (Sam Ruby's message of "Tue, 15 May 2007 22:12:10 -0400") Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: > On 5/15/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: >> >> On May 15, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> > "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: >> > >> >> It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies. Here's a draft: >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html >> > >> > Where it says "The ASF will no longer accept new NDAs", presumably >> > we will still allow new committers to submit NDAs for existing >> > specs, correct? >> >> Why don't we try to dump the whole NDA thing and be self-consistent? ;) > > Do, or do not. There is no 'try.' -- Jedi Master Yoda +1 to adopt Sam's changes to the JCP policy. -- Joe Schaefer From whiteadam@example.net Mon Jun 11 03:51:47 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 48763 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2007 03:51:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jun 2007 03:51:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 14209 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2007 03:51:49 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 14131 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2007 03:51:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 14122 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jun 2007 03:51:48 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO sca-es-mail-1.sun.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:44 -0700 Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([83.161.120.155]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l5B3pOrK002655 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <whiteadam@example.net> (original mail from whiteadam@example.net) for whiteadam@example.net; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (c-24-6-172-77.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [83.161.120.155]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <whiteadam@example.net> for whiteadam@example.net; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:51:25 -0700 From: Craig L Russell <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies In-reply-to: <whiteadam@example.net> Sender: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net Message-id: <whiteadam@example.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Content-type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary=Apple-Mail-+1-228-715-4028; micalg=sha1 References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail-+1-228-715-4028 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Jun 10, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: > >> On 5/15/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: >>> >>> On May 15, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> >>>> "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies. Here's a draft: >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html This page needs to be updated. Some of the JSRs have shipped, and the expert group is only involved on a maintenance basis. For example, two that I know of, 220 and 244, have been released. Craig >>>> >>>> Where it says "The ASF will no longer accept new NDAs", presumably >>>> we will still allow new committers to submit NDAs for existing >>>> specs, correct? >>> >>> Why don't we try to dump the whole NDA thing and be self- >>> consistent? ;) >> >> Do, or do not. There is no 'try.' -- Jedi Master Yoda > > +1 to adopt Sam's changes to the JCP policy. > > -- > Joe Schaefer Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo +1-228-715-4028 mailto:whiteadam@example.net P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! --Apple-Mail-+1-228-715-4028 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGUDCCAwkw ggJyoAMCAQICECpJVMO68ii+Xfsc1O1YYFIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA2MTIwOTE5NTEwNVoXDTA3MTIwOTE5NTEw NVowbDEQMA4GA1UEBBMHUnVzc2VsbDEUMBIGA1UEKhMLQ3JhaWcgTGFpcmQxHDAaBgNVBAMTE0Ny YWlnIExhaXJkIFJ1c3NlbGwxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFUNyYWlnLlJ1c3NlbGxAU3VuLkNPTTCC ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAMNAB4Ih+ShsCt89HzqIdwEx8L4o1UHiY6V7 16mrCedfd4Y0/uI7z9Zam8ysgEh+F7aDnQEKmEsVFN35G4nPMfLU6dZYkvADwUjbq82t/dJ3FDDg Q945nHHpqECZff/S/UMho9AFfj6PZvZBAlDCJAayb4RdKIlfuvPW9YcQStQ1IfVJcVuKnC0Q+tdc a4A7zn7IzLOQohO1lTc3hXSBigEIGiGYn6Ny0wmexfA3X1WsXekFx5czd+M4GjDjswn8CNoBmnBr jOTGK1mOsXR6GSRHnly2s9xTdE4qv9qimM+7C2yzMHbKcszV7OQoLsRsZKDh+6u9wYU+TrjcY4ym bA8CAwEAAaMyMDAwIAYDVR0RBBkwF4EVQ3JhaWcuUnVzc2VsbEBTdW4uQ09NMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQC MAAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEAU/EpPDztnb55Fz7iGSVm1mYEVj5m2OQKTYG26POUAomCBRrt /CdBBvqYmcHUTpra0qLELHAQadYFl2v11iQkqwF5PPJs19oU/zA0m5qFnOMTAiCvel7IprIwA2r6 eJR9siaPwDRgVJ/Sj71dD+utwf+nRrNy0/7PMNK5y+ocsYQwggM/MIICqKADAgECAgENMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAMIHRMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMGA1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQH EwlDYXBlIFRvd24xGjAYBgNVBAoTEVRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nMSgwJgYDVQQLEx9DZXJ0aWZp Y2F0aW9uIFNlcnZpY2VzIERpdmlzaW9uMSQwIgYDVQQDExtUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1h aWwgQ0ExKzApBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHHBlcnNvbmFsLWZyZWVtYWlsQHRoYXd0ZS5jb20wHhcNMDMw NzE3MDAwMDAwWhcNMTMwNzE2MjM1OTU5WjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3Rl IENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWls IElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAMSmPFVzVftOucqZWh5owHUE cJ3f6f+jHuy9zfVb8hp2vX8MOmHyv1HOAdTlUAow1wJjWiyJFXCO3cnwK4Vaqj9xVsuvPAsH5/Ef kTYkKhPPK9Xzgnc9A74r/rsYPge/QIACZNenprufZdHFKlSFD0gEf6e20TxhBEAeZBlyYLf7AgMB AAGjgZQwgZEwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBDBgNVHR8EPDA6MDigNqA0hjJodHRwOi8vY3Js LnRoYXd0ZS5jb20vVGhhd3RlUGVyc29uYWxGcmVlbWFpbENBLmNybDALBgNVHQ8EBAMCAQYwKQYD VR0RBCIwIKQeMBwxGjAYBgNVBAMTEVByaXZhdGVMYWJlbDItMTM4MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GB AEiM0VCD6gsuzA2jZqxnD3+vrL7CF6FDlpSdf0whuPg2H6otnzYvwPQcUCCTcDz9reFhYsPZOhl+ hLGZGwDFGguCdJ4lUJRix9sncVcljd2pnDmOjCBPZV+V2vf3h9bGCE6u9uo05RAaWzVNd+NWIXiC 3CEZNd4ksdMdRv9dX2VPMYIDEDCCAwwCAQEwdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECECpJVMO68ii+Xfsc1O1YYFIwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAW8wGAYJKoZIhvcN AQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDcwNjExMDM1MTI2WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0B CQQxFgQUI6rreLfByh+O9NJlQG0zUdr9LScwgYUGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDF4MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMC WkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0 ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAqSVTDuvIovl37HNTtWGBSMIGHBgsqhkiG 9w0BCRACCzF4oHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQ dHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAq SVTDuvIovl37HNTtWGBSMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAFQpUjs0frQhkJZvW3GW21Un8YNLErpF V2YvLJQlWoJPe64UjFTCaS1HjJgtCVPXttZRFfAnc2T+rzR19+7OAOVeDCWXnXlYuS8k6TzJwwh1 xFGpLFYSQ0qyfUaLLnkD7Mbq0Zcp+u4bmw0yny+Lwyg3VqpXgiO2+bVmwodb5M9dd2HxpoUw7EZ7 dO0Jd5pFfWPZissTbr7ONJ3CUDyB7mhtUc2+E+g1XnBcJ+LG94Dhp+3Blz8MtBcBA7IhkMZvSsA9 dRsbTvxJkXkm+NXolSWmGVS/oExVV8K29a3PgC8R4AwVXugpYDqX/QMec2GDrmqKlcJdnFBzzYcQ Xs34Hh0AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-+1-228-715-4028-- From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 13 20:31:16 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 77384 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2007 20:31:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2007 20:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 27731 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 20:31:18 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 27651 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 20:31:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 27641 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2007 20:31:18 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:31:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO virtual.halosg.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:31:14 -0700 Received: (qmail 24219 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2007 15:27:12 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (83.161.120.155) by halosg.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2007 15:27:12 -0500 Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:30:15 +0200 From: Filip at Apache <whiteadam@example.net> Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Servlet Expert Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I've previously emailed about joining the servlet expert group and now have two alternatives 1. Join as an individual 2. Join as an ASF representative I'd much rather join as an ASF representative, however, there is a name Pier Fumagalli is already listed for ASF. If the ASF is ok to have 2 representatives, then I can do option 2. Otherwise, its probably best for me to do option 1. Comments? Filip From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 13 20:33:02 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 77888 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2007 20:32:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2007 20:32:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 33007 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 20:33:00 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 32913 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 20:33:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 32904 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2007 20:33:00 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:33:00 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:32:54 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q50so267508wrq for <whiteadam@example.net>; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=nmbB6k0UA7rM5QtdwWAbAcTIwk9TIjiv4AVUH96TZe0IqMGodFosufBgJ+A/dnKuvd4JQjakipLBWlnRv0FD5LkR9vCJKSCL/Rwpr+HkkTUO6MOlGjgyiCKqToCJhGPAzPhcpjmgWFykKJGu3vJmqQeNHLdvLUROrPes3U2YGGw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=gxmqnYLbQS6oR3sJbbf5zbCXlXd+78td8KdX9ChGHbEuxL0XeRzxqyc8hvgcelg/Gr5al9+iRs3B9KIWoWXM3b7XM0633SE2xhMigI9gWDEtcQ7msERj8vTwl92rKWfasSkVHFdx7i6LL0Oh07pvRBFrp2c9kzubBMPwpVx3BUA= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id h7mr403378hue.1181766752682; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:32:32 +0200 From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> Sender: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net, whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: Servlet Expert Group In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <whiteadam@example.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5280a295b8c1f2b7 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org It's up to the spec lead, if (s)he is fine with two guys from the same org. than it should be fine for having you being also a ASF representative -M On 6/13/07, Filip at Apache <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: > I've previously emailed about joining the servlet expert group and now > have two alternatives > > 1. Join as an individual > > 2. Join as an ASF representative > > > I'd much rather join as an ASF representative, however, there is a name > Pier Fumagalli is already listed for ASF. > If the ASF is ok to have 2 representatives, then I can do option 2. > Otherwise, its probably best for me to do option 1. > > > Comments? > Filip > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org From whiteadam@example.net Fri Jun 15 14:49:55 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 8510 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2007 14:49:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2007 14:49:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 35459 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2007 14:49:52 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 35364 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2007 14:49:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 35355 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2007 14:49:52 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:52 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO nz-out-0506.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:48 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so862280nzi for <whiteadam@example.net>; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Y7nLS5MzewYNjIFBhVrM8kxg5H640jg8qmdPSUQJljAptNXAZ2gx3nNzjBabFyVmEUT+s0i5FMPyv0TThUr+6zm7/a9Daa1bg5xJGL0GO5PuYZ/+USUBIPLwtvKRWWfj73DxMcjMok1jbI31UQOTDNhdpjKJ5TErRseOlfH3HQ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Q/mXmDLmtpCuFtUI1C5PNz39dw79loFLJQfWOcVL9wys7OgCPnWw+Oi07b4s5lSuwoVUFMh+L3kwmODRGDnaPcofY7tu1nkwX+epxZyWntCzQhPHm9fXkozjo6xEdzg7cEBNSct4FhoYuljB+eAlb39KWbqBi8pHPQKx6/XzUWg= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id z1mr3122508wac.1181918966687; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:49:26 -0400 From: "Davanum Srinivas" <whiteadam@example.net> Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org +1 from me too. On 6/10/07, Joe Schaefer <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: > "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: > > > On 5/15/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: > >> > >> On May 15, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > >> > >> > "Sam Ruby" <whiteadam@example.net> writes: > >> > > >> >> It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies. Here's a draft: > >> >> > >> >> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html > >> > > >> > Where it says "The ASF will no longer accept new NDAs", presumably > >> > we will still allow new committers to submit NDAs for existing > >> > specs, correct? > >> > >> Why don't we try to dump the whole NDA thing and be self-consistent? ;) > > > > Do, or do not. There is no 'try.' -- Jedi Master Yoda > > +1 to adopt Sam's changes to the JCP policy. > > -- > Joe Schaefer > -- Davanum Srinivas 888a:dbb7:2d49:b3f6:8605:bf4e:caed:e5a4 http://davanum.wordpress.com From whiteadam@example.net Thu Jun 21 07:57:10 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 16902 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2007 07:57:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2007 07:57:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 15287 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 07:57:04 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 15181 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 07:57:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 15149 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2007 07:57:03 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:57:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ik-out-1112.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:56:57 -0700 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b35so430181ika for <whiteadam@example.net>; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:56:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=FnxlEW3VSmTfH6wyTykTlatgBnLlLdCb/7mx40nh3KtU+ZNnZlr4k5/eEBMopd+ugqxvrhhJCVZkMaLfN1apdl2nwqFNFcPt5BMWQZtSQ/QpIRVmt/EYTGJT5AiNxwyn2rr1KqLicSxlELaAGjKC7jY/GXrsclsBT6iK6F38erw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=HbmM2Pwp/N+Rqs8TKL9MLxdAi6FrkSgDEUYEQdn4VufdtWRuUKx63T6sOo1mXasJmKEEV4NCmRaqk6EGt2YBzASghhsGXZekTJS7MQN7Dxu/yVzeBfBT+hwctLMEDJ4NWu8NzTGEawsq3jHNSuyx8xz6d4k/oFZXpfh2HPJ+naQ= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id u6mr737217hud.1182412595717; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:56:35 +0200 From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> Sender: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: JSR 314: JavaServer Faces 2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8fdf43272d6a6543 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, I just looked and Apache Software Foundation is now listed, as part of the EG. So, can we now add Gary and Martin to be the representatives, as already discussed here ? And also, can we get access to the mailing list ? (For those, that signed the NDA (in the past, it was the rule)) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org From whiteadam@example.net Thu Jun 21 14:37:10 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 98046 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2007 14:37:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2007 14:37:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 73793 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 14:37:07 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 73710 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 14:37:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 73701 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2007 14:37:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:37:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO rwcrmhc14.comcast.net) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:37:02 -0700 Received: from rmailcenter90.comcast.net ([83.161.120.155]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with SMTP id <20070621143641m14006g6v7e>; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:36:41 +0000 Received: from [83.161.120.155] by rmailcenter90.comcast.net; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:36:40 +0000 From: whiteadam@example.net (Gary VanMatre) To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: JSR 314: JavaServer Faces 2.0 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:36:40 +0000 Message-Id: <062120071436.whiteadam@example.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Oct 4 2006) X-Authenticated-Sender: Z3Zhbm1hdHJlQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_16629_1182436600_0" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_16629_1182436600_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> > > Hi, > > I just looked and Apache Software Foundation is now listed, as part of the EG. > So, can we now add Gary and Martin to be the representatives, as > already discussed here ? > That's correct. Martin and I have been accepted. This is my first time so any guidance regarding the correct ASF protocol would be greatly appreciated. > And also, can we get access to the mailing list ? > (For those, that signed the NDA (in the past, it was the rule)) > > -Matthias > Gary > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_16629_1182436600_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <html><body> <DIV>&gt;From: "Matthias Wessendorf" &lt;whiteadam@example.net&gt; <BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Hi, <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I just looked and Apache Software Foundation is now listed, as part of the EG. <BR>&gt; So, can we now add Gary and Martin to be the representatives, as <BR>&gt; already discussed here ? <BR>&gt;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>That's correct.&nbsp; Martin and I have been accepted.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is my first time so any guidance regarding the correct ASF protocol would be greatly appreciated.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;<BR>&gt; And also, can we get access to the mailing list ? <BR>&gt; (For those, that signed the NDA (in the past, it was the rule)) <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; -Matthias <BR>&gt; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Gary</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><BR>&gt; -- <BR>&gt; Matthias Wessendorf <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; further stuff: <BR>&gt; blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ <BR>&gt; mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org </DIV></body></html> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_16629_1182436600_0-- From whiteadam@example.net Thu Jun 21 14:45:38 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 2361 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2007 14:45:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2007 14:45:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 1768 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 14:45:38 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 1689 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2007 14:45:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 1680 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2007 14:45:38 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:45:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:45:33 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id l31so648124ugc for <whiteadam@example.net>; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:45:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=MBoS5DZAgmiyUDscd6dgdgba3wOHkDurKzhZWm56pQH32mxORgIyC2tljRBQhcS3UIUow7m6CcekKhq1gzy2IDDJOYwP3Yj2x1yO5BZIwpiapu6lI1PcU7RQx1ZVjLZVZEcPsWm8JAzLxZO4rtagr2xpxAxm2pYLBACyULVYOUI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=fTqULPmBKnA3hQ/wiyCnte89tB4CXn9uoT0hPPuaNGgMK44BsbxMhfmUJTDN4Gw06yfM+qe7t7gtJRGytcpnfyUY+Lu5CdCi3i6Yy3fXiZB9qHVqFYpEVnTt8YydU6aSttS86J+t4mI60al6T3OCZGM7GCyr5fKjX6F/6qTag2o= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id g15mr979989huf.1182437112153; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:45:12 +0200 From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> Sender: whiteadam@example.net To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: JSR 314: JavaServer Faces 2.0 In-Reply-To: <062120071436.whiteadam@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <062120071436.whiteadam@example.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 68be3c1c5fd23ee3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Cool, that you are already in. Can you ask Ed Burns, if he will have an "open mailing list", like we have here at Apache ? If not... try to convince him :-) Otherwise, let's try to get a JSR-314-mailing list here @Apache. Thanks! Matthias On 6/21/07, Gary VanMatre <whiteadam@example.net> wrote: > > >From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <whiteadam@example.net> > > > > Hi, > > > > I just looked and Apache Software Foundation is now listed, as part of the > EG. > > So, can we now add Gary and Martin to be the representatives, as > > already discussed here ? > > > > > That's correct. Martin and I have been accepted. This is my first time so > any guidance regarding the correct ASF protocol would be greatly > appreciated. > > > > > And also, can we get access to the mailing list ? > > (For those, that signed the NDA (in the past, it was the rule)) > > > > -Matthias > > > > Gary > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 27 05:48:51 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 18372 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2007 05:48:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2007 05:48:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 72107 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 05:48:52 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 72034 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 05:48:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Delivered-To: moderator for whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 5361 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jun 2007 04:58:06 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 83.161.120.155 X-Report-Abuse-To: whiteadam@example.net (see http://www.mailhop.org/outbound/abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/q3Rhjh3TH1ZATiwVqw9WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> References: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Matt Hogstrom <whiteadam@example.net> Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:41 -0400 To: whiteadam@example.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Are we going too far to the other side of the pendulum? Not accepting new NDAs for existing projects could be a roadblock to building communities. I think it would be more appropriate to limit ASF use of TCK's that are restrictive beyond what we find acceptable as far as restrictions on consumers down the line. One question I have on the FOU restriction for the Java TCK is what would happen if we did certify Harmony with the TCK under its current terms? I would assume that this means that people that download a certified binary would have to be shot if they used it in a Kiosk. But what if someone grabbed the code from a particular release and built it themselves. Are they under the terms of the license? I would think presumably not as the certification is on a binary and not an svn rev number. IANAL so I don't know the ramifications of this scenario. I guess my point is we should evaluate what TCKs and projects we participate in based on their individual merits and not do a sweeping non-NDA position going forward. I think the license is freedom of expression and if folks have limitations in them we don't like we don't have to work with the IP. On May 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > As of yet, we have not received acceptable licensing terms for JCK > needed for Harmony certification, nor have we received an official > response to the open letter[1]. > > It is time for the ASF to stop supporting activities which are > fundamentally inconsistent with our continued operations as a > non-profit 501(c)3 charity. > > It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies. Here's a draft: > > http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html > > Feedback welcome. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html > From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 27 14:50:46 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 27862 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2007 14:50:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2007 14:50:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 38749 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 14:50:47 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 38572 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 14:50:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 38548 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jun 2007 14:50:46 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:50:46 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO sun.savoirtech.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:50:42 -0700 Received: from MacPro.local ([83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by sun.savoirtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5REoKDt020029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <whiteadam@example.net>; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:20 -0600 Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:20 -0600 From: Jeff Genender <whiteadam@example.net> Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net Organization: Apache Geronimo User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.9 (2007-02-13) on sun.savoirtech.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3541/Wed Jun 27 06:44:24 2007 on sun.savoirtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.0 required=5.6 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=failed version=3.1.9 Is there some additional discussion that has ensued after the open-letter? Has there been any direct contact with Sun regarding the JCK, other than the open letter? Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Are we going too far to the other side of the pendulum? > > Not accepting new NDAs for existing projects could be a roadblock to > building communities. I think it would be more appropriate to limit ASF > use of TCK's that are restrictive beyond what we find acceptable as far > as restrictions on consumers down the line. > > One question I have on the FOU restriction for the Java TCK is what > would happen if we did certify Harmony with the TCK under its current > terms? I would assume that this means that people that download a > certified binary would have to be shot if they used it in a Kiosk. But > what if someone grabbed the code from a particular release and built it > themselves. Are they under the terms of the license? I would think > presumably not as the certification is on a binary and not an svn rev > number. IANAL so I don't know the ramifications of this scenario. > > I guess my point is we should evaluate what TCKs and projects we > participate in based on their individual merits and not do a sweeping > non-NDA position going forward. I think the license is freedom of > expression and if folks have limitations in them we don't like we don't > have to work with the IP. > > > > On May 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> As of yet, we have not received acceptable licensing terms for JCK >> needed for Harmony certification, nor have we received an official >> response to the open letter[1]. >> >> It is time for the ASF to stop supporting activities which are >> fundamentally inconsistent with our continued operations as a >> non-profit 501(c)3 charity. >> >> It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies. Here's a draft: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html >> >> Feedback welcome. >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html >> From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 27 16:25:07 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 50164 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2007 16:25:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2007 16:25:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 82662 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 16:25:04 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 82501 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 16:25:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 82492 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jun 2007 16:25:03 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:25:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of whiteadam@example.net designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail.sunstarsys.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:24:59 -0700 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (mumonkan.sunstarsys.com [83.161.120.155]) by mail.sunstarsys.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l5RGOchR005252 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:24:38 -0400 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (whiteadam@example.net [83.161.120.155]) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-4) with ESMTP id l5RGOVZ5026960 for <whiteadam@example.net>; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:24:32 -0400 Received: (from joe@localhost) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l5RGOVON026959; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:24:31 -0400 From: Joe Schaefer <whiteadam@example.net> To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:24:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> (Matt Hogstrom's message of "Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:41 -0400") Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Matt Hogstrom <whiteadam@example.net> writes: [...] > One question I have on the FOU restriction for the Java TCK is what > would happen if we did certify Harmony with the TCK under its current > terms? Then we've broken a covenant with our users, that stuff downloadable from apache.org is licensed at least as liberally as the Apache License allows. A click-through agreement on the installer would probably be required to faithfully implement the FOU restrictions. Yuck to that. The real question would be: who else besides Apache would actually distribute it, if harmony+FOU doesn't even qualify as open source software? > I would assume that this means that people that download a certified > binary would have to be shot if they used it in a Kiosk. But what if > someone grabbed the code from a particular release and built it > themselves. Then I think whatever patent and trademark claims Sun has on the software remain intact, although Geir's opinion is probably what you need to be hearing. We don't know what the explicit patent claims are, because Sun won't disclose them, but it's reasonable to assume that any implementation of Java infringes on patents owned by or licensed to Sun. > Are they under the terms of the license? I would think presumably not > as the certification is on a binary and not an svn rev number. IANAL > so I don't know the ramifications of this scenario. Our license only covers IP contributed to Apache, which Sun has not done in the case of harmony. As I understand the JSPA, we rely on passing the TCK to get the "necessary IP" from the spec lead, so we can distribute TCK-passing software under the Apache License alone. I don't know if a source-code distribution would fall under that IP grant if the corresponding binary passed the TCK. If it doesn't, then that's probably another defect in the JSPA we should try to get addressed. > I guess my point is we should evaluate what TCKs and projects we > participate in based on their individual merits and not do a sweeping > non-NDA position going forward. That would undercut the ability of Apache to speak on the issue with one voice. If we're just a federation of projects and there's no reason for spec leads to deal with Apache projects uniformly, then they won't. That's the lesson I'd take away from harmony to date. IMO we need to stop trafficing in NDAs if we're really producing software for the benefit of the public. The public needs to be able to inspect those third-party IP agreements on the software they are downloading directly from us. > I think the license is freedom of expression and if folks have > limitations in them we don't like we don't have to work with the IP. Part of the problem here is that an NDA limits freedom of expression. The other part of the problem is that we can't just walk away from J2SE now that we've put so much time and energy into it. Maybe walking away from 1.5 is the right thing to do, but there's no guarantee 1.6 or 1.7 will be any better, and allowing Sun to shift our goal posts like that is simply unfair. -- Joe Schaefer From whiteadam@example.net Wed Jun 27 18:13:04 2007 Return-Path: <whiteadam@example.net> Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 738 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2007 18:13:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jun 2007 18:13:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 22813 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 18:13:02 -0000 Delivered-To: whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 22733 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jun 2007 18:13:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact whiteadam@example.net; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net list-help: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Post: <mailto:whiteadam@example.net> List-Id: <jcp-open.apache.org> Delivered-To: mailing list whiteadam@example.net Received: (qmail 22724 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jun 2007 18:13:02 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:13:02 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO sun.savoirtech.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:12:57 -0700 Received: from MacPro.local ([83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by sun.savoirtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5RICaSa000440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <whiteadam@example.net>; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:36 -0600 Message-ID: <whiteadam@example.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:36 -0600 From: Jeff Genender <whiteadam@example.net> Reply-To: whiteadam@example.net Organization: Apache Geronimo User-Agent: Thunderbird 83.161.120.155 (Macintosh/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: whiteadam@example.net Subject: Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies References: <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> <whiteadam@example.net> In-Reply-To: <whiteadam@example.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.9 (2007-02-13) on sun.savoirtech.com X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3541/Wed Jun 27 06:44:24 2007 on sun.savoirtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.0 required=5.6 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=failed version=3.1.9 My concern here is where we are going with this. I apologize in advance if I missed something regarding the JCK vs TCK with respect to Harmony. If I did, please point it out. I asked in a previous email about the open letter to Sun about if anyone has made direct contact with those
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}