JPMS (JSR 376) EG video conference: Thursday 18 May, 15:00 UTC

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

EC member here.  The intent here is that the EC knows 30 days is a short
period of time and that higher bandwidth communication is advisable in
order to speed up resolutions.  We're certainly *not* expecting there to be
restrictions on other forms of communication.  If that's what came across
then that certainly was not our intention.

Cheers,
Martijn

On 17 May 2017 at 21:20, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/17/2017 03:18 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>
>> 2017/5/17 11:33:50 -0700, david.lloyd at redhat.com:
>>
>>> On 05/17/2017 01:18 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> As I wrote in my reply to Tim nearby, my request that EG members refrain
>>>> from participating in public fora is in response to the suggestion made
>>>> by some JCP EC members that direct discussions amongst EG members will
>>>> be more productive than indirect discussions via public e-mail messages,
>>>> articles, and blog entries.  EG members are of course free to discuss
>>>> JPMS and Java SE 9 issues as needed on a private basis with colleagues,
>>>> users, and customers, and to discuss unrelated topics publicly.
>>>>
>>>> If you cannot agree to this request then as an alternative, and if
>>>> everyone else who wants to participate agrees, we could hold a single
>>>> marathon meeting starting at 15:00 UTC any day this week or next.
>>>>
>>>> What is your preference?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please allow me to clarify what you are asking.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that, from this moment forward, no technical discussion
>>> about JPMS or Java SE 9 will allowed, under threat of effective eviction
>>> from the EG, by any EG member (including Oracle) or any of their
>>> (possibly thousands of) employees, in any public forum?  Or are you
>>> merely talking about the experts and not their coworkers?
>>>
>>
>> I don't see much point in trying to negotiate legalistic rules around
>> all of this.
>>
>> I'm simply asking that, in the spirit of the suggestion made by members
>> of the JCP EC, members of this EG and their colleagues exercise good
>> professional judgement.  Let's limit our discussions to these meetings
>> for the duration, rather than to a confusing mix of private meetings and
>> public e-mail messages, and let's agree not to attempt to influence the
>> discussions from outside via public channels.
>>
>
> OK, in that case I think we are in agreement, thanks.
>
> --
> - DML
>