Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Interaction Between Code-First and Speci

[Mark Little <mlittle@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike, I was typing on a plane as it was taxiing but I meant agreement
and not disclaimer so I think we're on the same page.

Note, Scott Peterson and I have been discussing these aspects
separately since then and I believe he would be in agreement with you
too.

Mark.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 2:44 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>
>> Not true. Or at least it need not be the case. Take a look at OASIS
>> for instance: anyone participating in the OASIS mailing lists has to
>> sign a disclaimer around IP or they cannot participate in those
>> discussions. Why can't we do the same?
>
> Mark,
>
> We can, and we already do. That's called the Eclipse Contributor Agreement.
> And as I pointed out last night we intend to extend the ECA to cover
> specifications generally.
>
> Perhaps this is semantics, but in my mind what you just stated above is a
> formal process. I am pretty sure that OASIS doesn't ask you to sign a
> disclaimer, they ask you to sign an *agreement*. Those are quite different
> things. And by signing that agreement you are part of a formal specification
> process. We can and will do something similar.
>
>
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because a discussion doesn't give you legal rights to the IP, unless the
>>> discussion is part of a defined process with a legal framework for IP
>>> flow.
>>> That's the specification process we're defining here.
>>>
>>> Mark Little wrote on 5/31/18 3:50 AM:
>>>
>>> Why does that have to be done through a specification though? Why
>>> couldn’t
>>> it be done through a discussion between likeminded individuals, groups or
>>> vendors who share the same problem, have different proposed solutions, go
>>> away and try them, then come back at some time (perhaps pre-determined)
>>> to
>>> share their experiences and move forward to standardise what works? Now
>>> that
>>> problem statement and the range or proposed solutions should be
>>> documented
>>> somewhere and I suppose we could call it an “alpha release of the
>>> specification” or maybe just on a wiki or mailing list or google doc or
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 May 2018, at 07:46, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> While there will always be product-specific features, some of which might
>>> make
>>> their way into future versions of the specification, wouldn't it also be
>>> nice if
>>> multiple independent implementations of new functionality could be
>>> created
>>> simultaneously to experiment with the new features in different contexts
>>> and
>>> with different customers?  I just don't see how to do that without having
>>> some
>>> sort of specification being developed at the same time as the
>>> implementations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
> jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee