Neal Gafter wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:15 -0800, Neal Gafter wrote:
>>> The OpenJDK governing board, having had its life extended by a >>> year, is now scheduled to dissolve in four months, with two of its >>> non-Sun positions remaining unfilled. The last published meeting >>> minutes were from April 2008, at which it was agreed that the GB >>> would strive for a draft Constitution by the end of 2008. >>> Who are the seven members of the governing board? Can we please >>> see the minutes of meetings after April, and get a status report >>> on the Constitution? > The reason I ask is that I'm worried that openJDK may turn into the > defacto mechanism for features getting into the platform. The JCP > used to play that role, but there has been little activity in > forming a JSR for Java SE 7 in the past few years. I've noticed > that openjdk7 is more and more being called Java 7, JDK7, etc, even > though it doesn't implement a platform specification approved by the > JCP. If openjdk is to become the mechanism by which features are > added to the platform, I don't see how that can happen. For Java SE 7 to be released there must be a platform specification, and there must be a TCK. openjdk7 is a bunch of packages slated for Java SE 7 that may or may not get to be in the platform. > it would be better for the governance model to acknowledge and support that. It would, yes, but it would be a huge change. In the past there have undoubtedly been developments very much like the openjdk7 tree, where platform integration has proceeded prior to the formal platform specification. This is essential: you need to make sure that a design works in a reasonable way before its specification is finalized. The only difference now is that the openjdk7 tree is open. Andrew.
