<br><tt><font size=2>Hi Stanley<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>"Stanley M. Ho" <Stanley.Ho@SUN.COM>
wrote on 23/05/2007 18:30:03:<br>
<br>
> Hi Glyn,<br>
> <br>
> This strawman was developed based on the updated JSR 277 specification<br>
> which has undergone significant changes since the EDR, so ideally
the<br>
> updated specification is required in order for the readers to have
the<br>
> proper context to fully understand the strawman; otherwise, this could<br>
> lead to misunderstanding or confusion.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Agreed. It would be good to make both available to
the general public.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> That said, I have already received requests from a few observers since<br>
> yesterday, and I think it may indeed be helpful to have the strawman<br>
> available alone. However, it is unclear what the JCP rules are for<br>
> making material like this available outside the EG, and I have already<br>
> contacted the JCP PMO for clarification.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Fair enough, but I think this should be ok since the
JCP rules seem to encourage transparency. For example, section 2.1.1 of
JCP 2.6 ([1]) says:</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"While Spec Leads are free to operate Expert
Groups in whatever style they feel is most appropriate, they are encouraged
to choose a style that provides maximal transparency to the Expert Group,
community, the EC members and the public. The PMO provides Spec Leads with
tools and techniques for making the actions of their Expert Groups transparent,
and the EC members expect Spec Leads to carefully choose which tools are
best for their Expert Groups and commit to using them. Transparency is
valuable to everyone in the community, especially the Expert Group, because
it offers broader feedback to the group and helps build broader support
for the final spec."</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>So the JCP is, at least in spirit, fully supportive
of the kind of transparency needed by JSR 277. It's just a shame we can't
simply expose the Expert Group private page to the public, although this
is something the JCP should really consider supporting soon.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Section 2.3.1 of [1] says:</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"If the Expert Group makes major revisions to
the draft during Early Draft Review, the Spec Lead should send the revised
draft, along with a synopsis of the changes, to the PMO. The PMO will notify
Members of any updated drafts and change synopses received and make them
available for download by Members and the public."</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>This allows for multiple early draft specifications.
I guess the JCP's main concern here is appropriate notification to JCP
Members that a draft has been issued. This is sensible as not everyone
who is interested will have the time to follow the mailing list. I doubt
that it would be appropriate to notify JCP Members of interim strawman
documents though.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Then there's the precedent of the JSR 294 strawman
appearing in a blog even before the EG was formed. The JCP didn't object
to that, AFAIK. Also, I forwarded at least one of the JSR 291 drafts to
the publicly viewable mailing list and again the JCP didn't object.</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Anyway, let's hope the JCP clarify this quickly. :-)</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> - Stanley<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Glyn Normington wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Stanley<br>
> ><br>
> > Don't you think we should make the strawman available to observers
of<br>
> > this list so they have the context to follow subsequent discussion
of<br>
> > the strawman and send in any insights they may have?<br>
> ><br>
> > Glyn</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Glyn</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>[1] http://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2<br>
</font></tt><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<hr><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<i><br>
</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><i>Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>