Delayed sponsorship vote on the JDK 6 Project Proposal

[Mark Reinhold]

Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December [1].

Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
Project on 7 January [2], and in due course that vote passed [3].

The interim governance rules [4] require that a Group vote to sponsor
a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
invalid.  (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)

Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.

GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
message.

- Mark


[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2007-December/000051.html
[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000659.html
[3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000696.html
[4] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/

[Simon Phipps-3]

Seems reasonable. I agree.

On Jan 16, 2008, at 23:39, Mark Reinhold wrote:

> Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December [1].
>
> Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
> Project on 7 January [2], and in due course that vote passed [3].
>
> The interim governance rules [4] require that a Group vote to sponsor
> a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
> invalid.  (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
> likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)
>
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
>
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
> message.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2007-December/ 
> 000051.html
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/ 
> 000659.html
> [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/ 
> 000696.html
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/

[Fabiane Bizinella Nardon]

I agree.

Fabiane


Mark Reinhold wrote:

> Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December [1].
>
> Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
> Project on 7 January [2], and in due course that vote passed [3].
>
> The interim governance rules [4] require that a Group vote to sponsor
> a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
> invalid.  (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
> likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)
>
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
>
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
> message.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2007-December/000051.html
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000659.html
> [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000696.html
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/
>
>
>  

[Doug Lea]

I agree and vote yes.

-Doug


Mark Reinhold wrote:

> Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December [1].
>
> Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
> Project on 7 January [2], and in due course that vote passed [3].
>
> The interim governance rules [4] require that a Group vote to sponsor
> a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
> invalid.  (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
> likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)
>
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
>
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
> message.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2007-December/000051.html
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000659.html
> [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000696.html
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/
>

[Dalibor Topic]

Mark Reinhold wrote:

> Joe Darcy proposed the JDK 6 Project on 14 December [1].
>
> Kelly O'Hair called for the Build Group to vote on sponsoring this
> Project on 7 January [2], and in due course that vote passed [3].
>
> The interim governance rules [4] require that a Group vote to sponsor
> a proposed Project within 14 days, so strictly speaking this vote was
> invalid.  (I'm sure this was an innocent mistake on Kelly's part, most
> likely related to Sun's week-long break over the holidays.)
>
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
>
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
> message.

I agree with recognizing the vote.

Rationale: No build group Member challenged the validity of the vote. It
passed without No votes by Members. So I think it's unlikely that a
re-vote would result in a different outcome, from the one already
expressed by its Members, in particular since the discussion of the vote
on the build-dev list gives no indication of disagreement between Members.

A potential voice of disagreement was Erik Trimble post [1], but he
seems to be asking whether he can vote NO. Per the interim rules, as he
is not listed among the build group's members[2], he can not vote
without the group voting him in as a member first.

As an item of process curiosity, though: You are a member of the build
group, and haven't cast a vote, so you could try to argue that your vote
window still extends until the end of the two week period started by
Kelly's call for votes on the 7th. ;)

I think we can agree that a vote can be counted out by a groups's
moderator before all members have voted, provided that the majority is
irreversibly reached for or against the issue being voted on, as it was
in this case. That would prevent decisions from being delayed due to
Members whose votes couldn't influence a decision any more being absent
from the vote. Does that make sense to others?

[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000663.html
[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2008-January/000659.html

[Mark Reinhold]

> From: Mark Reinhold <mr@...>
> To: gb-discuss@...

> ...
>
> Rather than ask Joe to resubmit the JDK 6 Project Proposal, I hereby
> request the Interim Governance Board to recognize the Build Group's
> sponsorship vote as valid despite its tardiness.
>
> GB members: Please indicate your agreement (or not) in replies to this
> message.

Thank you for your prompt votes.

I also vote: yes.

For the record, the GB has now voted unanimously in favor of recognizing
the Build Group's delayed sponsorship vote of the JDK 6 Project.

- Mark

[Andy Tripp-2]

What's going on with the OpenJDK Interum Governance Board?

There hasn't been any email on this list in the last four months:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/gb-discuss/

I had heard (http://fitzsim.org/blog/)
that the OpenJDK constitution, which was supposed to
be ready by JavaOne2008, has been delayed a year, and that the
Interum GB now has two additional people. Are these true? If so,
why no posting about it on this list?

A search for "constitution" on the JavaOne2008 site returns nothing.

Until the OpenJDK has a constitution, things aren't really open, and
Sun continues to control everything. For example, without any rules
in place on the GB, Sun has changed the makeup of the GB and could
continue to do so.

I thought that the initial time frame for a constitution (9 months?)
was too long. Now, the deadline has passed, there seems to be zero progress
on it, and a whole extra year is added to the deadline? That's an
awful way to start a community. Constitutions for whole new countries
have been created and ratified in less time than this.

Perhaps the whole IGB thing needs to be re-evaluated, since the main purpose
of it is to produce a constitution, and zero progress seems
(at least from the outside looking in) to have been
made after nearly a year.

I know everyone's busy, but so far it seems like this whole GB, constitution,
etc. is just a sham.

Your friendly neighborhood thorn-in-your-side,
Andy Tripp

[Roman Kennke-2]

Hi Andy,

> What's going on with the OpenJDK Interum Governance Board?

> Until the OpenJDK has a constitution, things aren't really open, and
> Sun continues to control everything.

<etcetc>

I don't know about the constitution. But apart from that, there has been
a lot of progress on the technical side. OpenJDK now has live Mercurial
repositories, a lot of new active outside developers, both companies
(Red Hat, aicas) as well as individuals. There's a special TCK license
for OpenJDK. Sun has become reasonable open and responsive wrt to
patches and mailing list postings. I think they are doing pretty good,
considering that they are all horribly busy. I've been a strong critic
of the closedness of OpenJDK in the past, but I think I can honestly say
that OpenJDK is on a good way, not by observing one single mailing list
and detail of the progress, but by actively contributing and taking part
of the whole thing. IMO the constitution is only a beaurocratic little
detail and I'm sure it will be fixed, when needed.

Cheers, Roman

--
http://kennke.org/blog/

[Dalibor Topic]

Roman Kennke wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
>  
>> What's going on with the OpenJDK Interum Governance Board?
>>    
>
>  
>> Until the OpenJDK has a constitution, things aren't really open, and
>> Sun continues to control everything.
>>    
>
> <etcetc>
>
> I don't know about the constitution. But apart from that, there has been
> a lot of progress on the technical side. OpenJDK now has live Mercurial
> repositories, a lot of new active outside developers, both companies
> (Red Hat, aicas) as well as individuals. There's a special TCK license
> for OpenJDK. Sun has become reasonable open and responsive wrt to
> patches and mailing list postings. I think they are doing pretty good,
> considering that they are all horribly busy. I've been a strong critic
> of the closedness of OpenJDK in the past, but I think I can honestly say
> that OpenJDK is on a good way, not by observing one single mailing list
> and detail of the progress, but by actively contributing and taking part
> of the whole thing. IMO the constitution is only a beaurocratic little
> detail and I'm sure it will be fixed, when needed.
>  

Thanks, Roman, that's spot on.

I posted a longer set on my thoughts about the Interim GB 2.0 on my blog on
http://robilad.livejournal.com/31357.html why the focus of the project
shifted
over the past year to providing code and infra first, and constitutions
later
(i.e. later this year, not later forever).

cheers,
dalibor topic