<div>Several EG and community members,
myself included, have requested--directly or indirectly--for the
openness policy of JSR-314 to be revisited. We are concerned that the
original goals have not been fully met and, therefore, are not yet satisfied with the situation.<br>
<br>Certainly, the opening of the EG <span class="misspell">mailinglist</span> for viewing by
subscribers is a step in the right direction, but it does not embrace
the level of openness that properly respects the community's role and
expertise nor does it effectively attract new participants. <i>It's also important to note that the web archives stopped working in late June.</i><br>
<br>We never addressed two key requirements that were identified and agreed on in a previous thread (see <a href="http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&P=2581" target="_blank">http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&P=2581</a>):<br>
<br>1. We need a list focused on specification discussion that is readable/writable by the public.<br></div>2. The lists we use should be <span class="misspell">indexable</span>/accessible without requiring a <span class="misspell">login</span>.<br>
<div><br>Our first choice for request #1 is to allow all subscribed members
of the <span class="misspell">jsr</span>-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.<br><br>The
current solution, the <span class="misspell">jsr</span>-314-open <span class="misspell">mailinglist</span>, does not address either
of the above two requirements. (It's even difficult to reference a thread,
as indicated by the supporting link).<br>
<br>Additionally, having a moderator forward messages from the
<span class="misspell">jsr</span>-314-comments e-mail alias is also a flawed arrangement. It causes
extra work for the moderator and confusion on behalf of the sender, the
latter of whom gets locked out from participating in the discussion he
or she originates.<br>
<br>To muddy the waters further, the newly overhauled JCP site offers
EG-specific forums, JSR-314 included, that are open to the public:<br><br><a href="http://wiki.jcp.org/boards/index.php?b=958" target="_blank">http://wiki.jcp.org/boards/index.php?b=958</a><br>
<br>The forums meet the requirements above, with one possible
exception. Based on initial evaluation, it appears that the e-mail
bridge, if it exists, may not be enabled. I
think we can all agree that having an e-mail bridge is an implied
requirement.<br><br>Let the following response by Jim <span class="misspell">Driscoll</span> to an inquiry on the <a href="http://java.net/" target="_blank">java.net</a> forums about whether there are public discussion boards for JSF (<a href="http://forums.java.net/jive/message.jspa?messageID=358786" target="_blank">http://forums.java.net/jive/message.jspa?messageID=358786</a>) provide motivation to revisit the openness policy:<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;" class="gmail_quote">I'd
love to have more actual users involved in the discussion of future
features, please do join in as much as possible. I'm not sure about the
read-only nature of the 314-open list - I may be wrong. If I'm right
about it being read only, and you have specific suggestions, file a
spec bug/<span class="misspell">rfe</span>, and mail here, and I'll see to it that your points are
heard on the list.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><br>Clearly the read-only nature of the <span class="misspell">jsr</span>-314-open list
is acting as a barrier to participation. It puts more work on the
shoulders of EG members to carry discussions back and forth, in the
style of the game Telephone (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers</a>),
which we all learned in grade school quickly degrades the accuracy of
the initial message. As a result, a potential improvement to JSF
dissolves.<br>
<br>I'd like to provide clarifications about the agreements that were made at <span class="misspell">JavaOne</span> that Ed cited in the forum post referenced above.<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;" class="gmail_quote">
1. <a href="mailto:jsr-314-open@jcp.org" target="_blank">jsr-314-open@jcp.org</a> is read only to non-EG members. Non-EG members can earn they way in at the discretion of the EG.<br></blockquote></blockquote><div><br>Regardless
of whether we have one list or two, we need somewhere for community
members to post in an unrestricted manner. Currently, the community
still has no <span class="misspell">unmoderated</span> voice in the form of a <span class="misspell">mailinglist</span>.<br>
</div><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;" class="gmail_quote">2. Feedback should be sent to <a href="mailto:jsr-314-comments@jcp.org" target="_blank">jsr-314-comments@jcp.org</a>. This list is<br>
moderated by one of the EG members, in a rotating fashion. Currently<br>this is being done by Dan Allen. The moderator will pass along content<br>to <a href="mailto:jsr-314-open@jcp.org" target="_blank">jsr-314-open@jcp.org</a> at his or her discretion.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><br>This is a stopgap solution until we can have a real
community feedback channel. Forwarding messages is just messy and doesn't give the
sender a chance to participate.<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;" class="gmail_quote">
As usual, anyone can apply to be on the EG once they join the JCP, but<br>we scrutinize membership carefully, especially for individual<br>JCP members Organizational EG members have a little more weight.<br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>We should not consider individual JCP members
as lesser participants than organizations. Every participant in JSR-314 should be
treated with equal weight, regardless of whether they are John Smith,
Barack Obama or Acme, Inc.<br>
<br>Based on past discussions, the two changes to the openness policy of
JSR-314 that were stated at the beginning of this message seem to have
general support from EG members. Does anyone have objections to these
goals? If not, are there specific barriers that we need to overcome to
make this happen? Ed, Roger - do you have suggestions for how best to
pursue these goals? <br><br>-Dan<br></div><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>