"Maybe JBoss doesn't want an exclusively private list as one of the list options, but I know Sun does.  I'll leave it for other EG members to respond"

Where does this leave people like me?

Lincoln Baxter III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
Keep it simple.

On Nov 13, 2009 4:08 PM, "Ed Burns" <Ed.Burns@sun.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:54:45 -0500, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@gmail.com> said:

DA> Now back to this question: *So what replaces JSR-314-OPEN then?  *
DA> There are two issues here:

DA> 1. What happens to the current archives of JSR-314-OPEN?
DA> 2. What list do we use in the future?

DA> Unless there are any objections here, Max has agreed to import all
DA> the archives from March 09 until now into the jsr-314-public forum
DA> on Monday.  This will make them immediately accessible to the public
DA> and search engines.  We have the option of closing the replies on
DA> the threads. *I'm not sure what the right answer is there.*

I'm fine with this migration and feel no need to close replies on the
threads.

DA> We can import the discussions into our list as well. Then, the two
DA> lists will continue on their own paths.

DA> That brings us to the second question, what is our list?

DA> We certainly don't need both jsr-314-eg@jcp.org and
DA> jsr-314-observers@jcp.org.

I don't know about that, but I do know we need jsr-314-eg@jcp.org to be
an EG private email list.  Contractual discussions regarding licenses
and other topics that vendors feel sensitive about discussing openly
need a place to happen.  jsr-314-eg@jcp.org has been and will continue
to be that place.

DA> And since we don't want a exclusively private list, that leaves us
DA> with jsr-314-observers@jcp.org.

Maybe JBoss doesn't want an exclusively private list as one of the list
options, but I know Sun does.  I'll leave it for other EG members to
respond.

DA> It's not ideal, but we could probably live with PMO manually adding
DA> invited members to this list (to post). They claim that we are not
DA> restricted in who we choose to invite, so at least the policy is
DA> correct.

DA> However, the showstopper for jsr-314-observers@jcp is that the
DA> archives are not public for reading.

DA> We can adopt jsr-314-observers@jcp.org as soon as there is a public
DA> forum for it on jcp.org. I'd like to get this resolved ASAP so we
DA> can get off this list.

DA> That concludes my update. I suspect there will be plenty of
DA> discussion to follow. In summary, here are the action items for Max:

DA> 1. Posts to jsr-314-public@jcp.org should be sent out via e-mail.
DA> 2. Posting via jsr-314-public@jcp.org needs to be fixed
DA> 3. jsr-314-comments@jcp.org should be aliased to jsr-314-public@jcp.org
DA> 4. archives for jsr-314-observers@jcp.org needs to be publically accesable
DA> 5. JSR-314-OPEN archives should be imported into jsr-314-observers and
DA> jsr-314-public

Thanks for scratching your itch on this Dan.  Your advocacy for
open-ness fits in with the continuing push of JCP to be more open.

Ed

--
| ed.burns@sun.com  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage:         | http://ridingthecrest.com/