On 02/05/11 07:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
if you are not addressing these things, please at least document the rational for not addressing these issue.
I think there are only two such things: I hope a revised Contributor agreement is dealt with soon. We also need some per-project process documents describing rules and conventions about repository usage, commit rules, reviews, testing, and releases. I still agree that these need attention by the GB and others, but I still don't see how they directly impact bylaws.
So, does OpenJDK implement/define JavaSE or not?
No; OpenJDK will produce stable releases of projects such as "jdk8" that might just so happen to implement some other bodies' definition of "Java SE 8". I continue to think that one can and should omit reference to any such other bodies or corporations in these parts of the bylaws. So for example, no reference TCK licenses or Oracle branding agreements pertaining to products. However, the GB is required to ensure that contributors have access to "infrastructure": code, docs, tests, reviewers, etc necessary to successfully contribute. Which is likely to include those tests that comprise the TCK, as well as participation in a (hopefully revamped) "compatibility review" process that occasionally rejects (occasionally for good reason :-) bug fixes on the grounds of backward compatibility. And so on. -Doug
