The feedback from our legal team is that they would expect to have been involved much earlier than getting into the ballot phase, so the timeframe of 14 vs 30 days would not really matter.
I would like to hear from other companies involved here as to whether
they agree that 30 days is the minimal acceptable number. Both in
general, and for Jakarta EE.
On 2019-03-05 4:03 p.m., Bill Shannon wrote:
> We've talked previously about the minimum review period for reviews
> that lock in IP contributions, and the need to have adequate time for
> legal to review such specifications.
>
> I had a conversation with Oracle legal today and we talked about this
> issue. It is Oracle's position that the minimum review period must be
> no less than 30 days. Oracle will not participate in a specification
> process where the review period that locks in IP contributions is less
> than 30 days.
>
> Ideally the EFSP would specify 30 days as a minimum, to ensure that Oracle
> could participate in all Eclipse specification processes derived from the
> EFSP, but at the very least the JESP needs to specify this minimum.
>
> It would be interesting to hear what other corporations consider an
> adequate review period.
>
> Separately, Oracle is having discussions with the Eclipse IP advisory
> committee about how exactly this IP lock in occurs, and how exactly one
> could choose to withdraw from a group to avoid IP lock in. We expect
> this issue to be resolved at an Eclipse board meeting in the next month
> or two.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
