[jsr-314-open] revisiting the JSR-314 openness policy

[Dan Allen]

The message below that Roger passed on from the JCP frustrates me on many
levels. What I hear is that the JCP is changing things out from underneath
us, telling us after the fact, and not really being all that concerned that
they broke things in the process. Only when we call them do they say that
they have alternatives to recover our lost data. The JCP is supposed to be
supporting the expert groups. Instead, they seem to be more concerned with
fixing their website. I know that it is all well intended. But their way of
going about it just isn't acceptable, to me at least.

-Dan

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Roger Kitain <Roger.Kitain at sun.com> wrote:

> On a related note....
>
> As some of you may know, the EG archive mechanism for our EG emails has
> been broken.
> In other words, any emails sent to jsr-314-open alias have not been
> archived in our well known
> familiar place.
> I just got off the phone with  a JCP individual about this.  It appears
> that this started happening
> around June when the JCP went through a makeover of their site.
> The gist of it is that the archiving mechanism has been replaced  forum
> based mechanism:
> http://wiki.jcp.org/boards/index.php?b=jsr-314-public
> So any emails sent to jsr-314-public would (or should) show up here.
> They also said that the older jsr-314-open messages could be injected into
> this forum so we
> would not lose anything.
>
> I'm still awaiting specific
> details about the new process and what we need to do to rectify the
> situation, but it may mean
> we change from jsr-314-open to jsr-314-public.  I will let you know as soon
> as I find out more.
>
> -roger
>
>
>
>
> Ed Burns wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:00:28 +0100, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> PM> On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:09, Dan Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Our first choice for request #1 is to allow all subscribed members  of
>>>> the jsr-314-open list to post, with moderation of a person's  inaugural post
>>>> (webbeans-dev uses this approach, for instance). The  second choice would be
>>>> to have a separate list open to the  community. In either case, both lists
>>>> should satisfy request #2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> PM> My preference would be for there to be two email lists, both with  PM>
>> public, non-password-protected, archives. The first is the EG list.  PM> The
>> second is the a discussion list. A regular member of the EG can  PM> post
>> unmoderated to either list. Any subscriber can post to the  PM> discussion
>> list. If a member of the community is an expert on a  PM> particular
>> sub-topic, we should pull them into the EG list, using  PM> moderation to
>> allow their posts through.
>>
>> I like Pete's suggestion.  Dan, is the lack of email gateway the only
>> roadblock to using the existing facility on the new jcp.org site?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091006/46b61006/attachment.html