Re: OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Ratification vote begins tomorrow
neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com
Mon Jun 27 16:23:33 PDT 2011
Thank you Mark for the kind explanation.
Is not my intention to comment on the vote while still in progress, my questions were truly asked to better understand the position that our Steward has, so that we can better assist, as far as we can possibly do, the OpenJDK project and its Community.
I hope starting from tomorrow we will sit together and work on the missing pieces. I know it's not going to happen anytime soon, but I'm confident it will happen at some point.
Thank you again for this mail.
Sent from HTC Desire...
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
Please, support open standards:
----- Reply message -----
Da: mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Data: mar, giu 28, 2011 00:34
Oggetto: OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Ratification vote begins tomorrow
A: <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com>
Cc: <gb-discuss at openjdk.java.net>
2011/6/23 15:09 -0700, neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com:
> Is this draft we are voting now the really really final or there can
> be still some time for discussion?
The draft is final -- voting ends tomorrow at 16:00 UTC.
We've already been through two major drafts of the Bylaws, with plenty
of time for discussion.
(I really appreciate all the constructive comments that were made, by
the way, many of which had a tangible effect on the Bylaws.)
> I ask because I'm in strong doubt if to vote YES because it can be a
> start to build something that will work together with the Community,
> or to ABSTAIN, like my deep feelings suggest, bot to avoid a conflict
> of interest from my side, but especially because I still think those
> rules are not completely fair.
I understand how you and others have come to hold this opinion, and I
respect that. In the near term, however, I don't expect to see any
changes around the specific issues that you listed (assignment of rights
to Oracle, etc.).
To address a couple of other points you raised:
> But I still feel there are some problems with the current GB rules
> that should be addressed, because otherwise the risk is that we will
> have an OpenJDK project were contribution from external developers
> will always be difficult or next to impossible (and I speak like the
> guy that did several of those contributions, but all the time waiting
> from 4 to 6 months before a simple patch to be accepted, let alone
> part of Cacio that went in after a couple of years. Yeah, I have
> patience, but this is too much a difficult process, and the GB needs
> to address this as well).
Over time I think you'll see the present GB very keen to ensure that
non-Oracle developers can contribute effectively. Some GB members are
already in the habit of raising this topic on a regular basis.
> The ringing bell, although it was probably and honest communication
> mistake, like I already said on this same list in a different thread,
> is the new jdk7 forests.
> How fully in accordance with these rules a new project was accepted
> for jdk7 updates?
As Dalibor already pointed out, the JDK 7 Updates Project was proposed
and approved under the old interim guidelines  rather than the new
Bylaws, which have not yet been ratified and put into place. The old
rules were followed, as far as I can see, and the subsequent discussion
seems to have answered the remaining questions.
That some people were surprised by the proposal and its quick approval
is arguably a bug in the old rules. Under the proposed Bylaws it will,
in practice, take two weeks for a new Project to be approved, so there
will be plenty of time for extended discussion.
> The Community has safe alternatives, of course: OpenJDK for everything
> official, and IcedTea for the real work. Do we want this? My feeling
> is that the rules of the current GB will not change this situation, so
> voting YES will just be a way to normalise a situation that is not
> really nice, where we will end up condoning what was a perhaps needed,
> but definitely imposed, new board with new rules, and at the end of
> the day, claim that those rules are fair because the Community
> supports them.
In the end, you must vote as your conscience dictates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gb-discuss