I can't speak for Oracle legal, and I'm definitely not trying to represent
that this is a JCP requirement. All I'm saying is that Oracle legal is
(always) concerned about IP issues and it was recommended that we use
these split mailing lists. Or rather, that the split mailing lists were
accepted as a compromise between what we wanted, what the infrastructure
would support, and what legal wanted. Advice from your own lawyers might
differ.
Scott Stark wrote on 07/30/12 09:52:
> Is this split requirement still Oracle legal's view post JCP 2.8?
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Craig. I'm always amazed at some of the bizarre mailers people use, and
>> some of the strange ways they use them. I can't explain why these things
>> are happening, nor why people are doing them.
>>
>> I know the setup isn't as nice as we would like. We've asked for some
>> improvements in the mail system infrastructure but the team that owns it
>> is hesitant to do anything that's not critical because they plan to
>> replace the entire mail infrastructure to solve some other problems.
>> No, I don't know when that might happen nor whether it might address
>> any of our particular problems.
>>
>> Sadly, one of the reasons we have two lists is due to advice from our
>> lawyers. Contributions from expert group members are under the terms
>> of the JSPA, but contributions from the public are under the terms of
>> use for java.net. The two lists are an attempt to provide some
>> separation. I'm sure you can point out all sorts of ways in which it's
>> not perfect, but try explaining that to lawyers! :-)
>>
>> Given the constraints we're operating under, we've done the best we can
>> to provide a setup that allows and encourages participation from the
>> public. And of course, if you still feel like you're on the outside,
>> you might consider joining the expert group. We're always looking for
>> people like you to provide a different perspective.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for your contributions so far. I'm hoping to get caught
>> up on some of the recent discussions and have more to say about them
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> Craig Ringer wrote on 07/25/2012 05:54 PM:
>>> It is becoming increasingly difficult to participate in any discussion here
>>> because of the -experts and -users list split.
>>>
>>> People keep on replying to -users discussion on -experts, removing the cc of
>>> -users. The discussion is split between the two lists, and whenever I go to
>>> reply I have to check the recipient list carefully or I get a bounce from SYMPA
>>> explaining that I don't deserve to participate^W^W^W am not an -experts list
>>> member. Because people remove -users from the cc list I have to add it again
>>> every time, or my message generally only goes to the most immediately recent
>>> participant in the conversation.
>>>
>>> Does the EG seek outside opinions and experiences, or not? The -users and
>>> -experts split - and more importantly, the fact that discussion keeps on being
>>> moved to -experts - is a great way to suppress interest in participation.
>>> Presumably the moves to -experts are necessary because not everybody reads -users.
>>>
>>> I would like to think that experience from people who're actually implementing
>>> real-world applications and *using* the specs would be valued.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Craig Ringer
>>