What is the world coming to, when the London Java Community (London, for Pete's sake!) writes about "too many glasses of wine" instead of "too many pints"? What's with you, guys?
On 11/30/2011 10:29 AM, Martijn Verburg wrote:Hi all, FYI - The Effort has started at http://java.net/projects/ljc-london-jug/pages/JCPTerms with some terminology. Feedback is welcome! Cheers, Martijn On 13 October 2011 17:02, Alex Terrazas <terrazas.mbi@...> wrote:Excellent idea, Martijn. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@...> wrote:Hi all, To follow up on this, we will attempt to start a non-legalise translation of some of the most pertinent points of JSR 348 as part of the adopt a JSR program. This will be a non-binding wiki lead effort that will grow organically (i.e. When ever an outsider asks "What the heck does that mean?"). Cheers, Martijn On 12 September 2011 10:34, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@...> wrote:Hi Alex, Probably one for you all to discuss at the F2F. It's something that the LJC, Patrick and a few others have been discussing recently, providing non legalise translations of important JCP/JSR documents. Cheers, Martijn On 11 September 2011 21:31, Alex Terrazas <terrazas.mbi@...> wrote:Hey There: Sean brings up an important point that I would like to add for FUTURE (perhaps before final draft) consideration. That point concerns legal text and the inability of many JCP members to understand that text. I wonder if I would be appropriate to have text written in plain english that describes the implications of what the legal text says. I know in the new consumer finance protection law that was recently signed that all legal text must be explained in plain english. So, after a particularly challenging or important paragraph, I think we should have a paragraph that provides some examples of how a company or organization could exploit that paragraph commercially or otherwise. Make the text readable so that the average member could understand it. Thoughts? On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Sean Sheedy <sean@...> wrote:Werner, Thanks for your well-thought reply. One of the problems with spec leads is, to use the Java term loosely, the function of spec lead is overloaded. The current bylaws allow the spec lead to control how the work of EG members is licensed and thereby create a revenue stream directly from their work. The spec lead is also the EG's Chair, which means s/he controls the meetings. This creates a conflict of interest. And there lies the problem. In my opinion, many JCP members did not join the JCP to blindly "promote the efficient evolution of the Java platform." I believe that many individual members joined the JCP to contribute freely to a free platform, where value is obtained not from the platform itself but from what is enabled by it. I came to this conclusion by looking into the past while trying to understand why the Harmony debate evoked such a visceral response among individual members, and found these themes: - the JCP was changed to Apache's satisfaction and their decision to join created an endorsement of the JCP becoming an organization with FOSS values and bylaws, - there was also much hype about Java being open and alternatives not open, - there was much promoted about ways in which Java was being used in projects that helped humanity, - promotion of the JCP itself encouraged individual members to come make a difference, - individual members are not trained to read legal documents, especially to identify how different interpretations could profoundly contradict those beliefs, and - when these contradictions have been raised, the answer was "we need these tools to maintain the integrity of the platform for everyone's benefit". Most members are not lawyers who can read a document and tell you that the tools given to one company to fight fragmentation also give them control of the platform in other ways because the bylaws do not limit their use to fighting fragmentation. They also have not been exposed to how the current licensing situation was forged over many years in agreements sealed by NDAs, and exposed only in EC meetings that were then held behind closed doors, and even then only by vague reference so as not to break those NDAs and understandable only by others holding similar licenses. Even today, the EC's own deliberations are closed, even this one, save for the public minutes of official meetings. Because they have not been exposed to the full story, I expect that there are a lot of individual members out there who believe that that the JCP is still supposed to be the place to contribute freely to a free platform, and do not understand that transparency changes alone won't make this so. If I "promote the efficient evolution of the Java platform" without voicing these concerns, whose interests am I representing? To address this, I believe we need to find out what the individual JCP members feel about these points; as it drives how we, as elected members, are to represent them. Sean Sheedy 1 703 898 0201 ________________________________ On Sep 11, 2011 8:19 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@...> wrote: Sean/all, I understand your motives and agree with most, especially when it comes to giving the community or individuals (like ourselves) a fair chance and voice in this process. I don't remember hearing or seeing you in last Friday's call, where at least for the scope of an EG something interesting and important was discussed. A kind of "diversity" as I would call it, required to make an EG work. E.g. not accepting a Spec Lead by a single company and all or the majority of EG members being "agents" of that company. While the wording could be improved (e.g. I believe only "organization" was used, a healthy mix of commercial companies, NGOs and Indidivuals sounds better ;-) the idea is good and prevents some standards being driven by just one or a limited number of stakeholders. This should if all members equally contribute and not just "sit" there (we also had some cases of "alibi" members in some very popular JSRs) prevent a Spec Lead of having things their way. With regards to JSR 348, the fact, the WG is lead by somebody other than Patrick also brings in diversity. Not sure, if the rules and regulations prevented more than one Spec Lead for such JSR, otherwise having at least a second official Spec Lead for some of its follow-ups may prevent not just scheduling conflicts;-) Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: Sean Sheedy To: seee.ec@... ; me.ec@... ; jsr348-experts@... Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:21 AM Subject: [JSR348 EG] One example - Consensus I have stated this before, that I am opposed to the use of consensus as defined in these documents. I have no objection to a true process of consensus. However I have participated in JSRs were there were no rules of order and the spec leads had things their way, without a vote and with abusive results. In the process as defined, the Chair determines if there is or is not consensus. The Chair also determines if there is or is not a vote. Given that the current Chair has spoken as if representing Oracle at several meetings in the past year, and is employed by Oracle, I believe that at the present time, the conflict of interest is too great to safely employ this methodology. Second, consensus in public circles has a different meaning than the W3C's. In those circles, consensus is an inclusive process meaning that the group works to get everyone on board and everyone is flexible and open (it's not a matter of convincing or having hold-outs); nobody moves forward until all are on board or a few have chosen to suspend their objection. Votes do NOT happen because they are exclusive by definition. Because the word has a different public connotation I believe that the w3c definition should not be used as it is less familiar and this group's attendance is not limited to standards experts. That leaves the public definition. But for consensus to work in that case, the group needs to be inclusive, philosophically on the same page. This is not true for the EC where the philosophical common ground is, for the corporate members, to be exclusive: to compete! For these reasons, I believe the EC needs to permit any member to call to have Roberts Rules formally followed at any time they feel that informal operation is not working. This is in fact how Roberts Rules are often used in organizations: held in reserve until a member deems it necessary to invoke them. MSA (JSR 248/249) is the poster child for what can happen when there are no rules. It has occurred in the EC recently when Oracle cancelled several EC meetings without a vote and with objection from EC members. This requirement needs to extend to EGs as well. Roberts Rules are in use in countless public and private organizations to promote the efficient and fair conduct of their business. The lack of rules in the JCP has led to abuses. Therefore I believe it is imperative for any member to be able to invoke Roberts Rules in order to promote the efficient evolution of the Java platform by ensuring that no single member can abuse the process for evolving the platform by leveraging a lack of formality to manipulate meetings. Sean Sheedy 1 703 898 0201-- ************************************* Alex Terrazas, PhD, PMP President and Chief Scientist MediaBalance, Inc. 517-402-1596 *************************************-- ************************************* Alex Terrazas, PhD, PMP President and Chief Scientist MediaBalance, Inc. 517-402-1596 *************************************
Eduardo Gutentag | Director, Standards Strategy & Policy
Work Office: +1 650 506 1027 | Home Office: +1 510 550 4616 | SMS: +1 510 681 6540
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
5op334, 500 Oracle Parkway, | Redwood Shores, California 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
[JSR348 Observer] Re: [JSR348 EG] Re: [me.ec] One example - Consensus