[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Interaction Between Code-First and Specifications
|
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.
