apastsya
commented
13 years ago Comment created by pcurran:
Re the most recent comments:
399 - the appeals process is open ended (no timelines after a request for clarifition/documentation, for instance.) Other sections must prescribe what options are available to the EC in appeals.
PC> It's deliberately open-ended. As I suggested above, if you insist on spelling everything out in precise and legalistic detail you'll render this document completely incomprehensible and intimidating to the individual developers you want to encourage.
SS> JSR-348-142 provides an example of how the process doc can be clarified to provide more direction to the EC as to how to properly handle an appeal so as to provide a fair and consistent appeal process.
Then we'll deal with that in issue 142
SS> to address the argument of comprehensibility, the comprehensibility of the document would be aided greatly by following true open platform/open source practices; for example, many parts about license decisions and fairness would be eliminated if we settled on a small number of open source (open platform) licenses that members could choose from. Here I'm trying to close loopholes, some of which are created by deviating from these practices.
Irrelevant. You obviously have a big axe to grind, but please let's keep to the point. We've already agreed that the matter of suggested/recommended licenses is out of scope for this JSR and will be dealt with in the follow-on JSR.
I will close this as "Will not fix."
Jira issue originally created by user sean_sheedy:
Process Document review
line numbers: JCP-2.8-21SEP2011-Redlined.pdf
399 - the appeals process is open ended (no timelines after a request for clarifition/documentation, for instance.) Other sections must prescribe what options are available to the EC in appeals.
PC> It's deliberately open-ended. As I suggested above, if you insist on spelling everything out in precise and legalistic detail you'll render this document completely incomprehensible and intimidating to the individual developers you want to encourage.
SS> JSR-348-142 provides an example of how the process doc can be clarified to provide more direction to the EC as to how to properly handle an appeal so as to provide a fair and consistent appeal process.
SS> to address the argument of comprehensibility, the comprehensibility of the document would be aided greatly by following true open platform/open source practices; for example, many parts about license decisions and fairness would be eliminated if we settled on a small number of open source (open platform) licenses that members could choose from. Here I'm trying to close loopholes, some of which are created by deviating from these practices.