Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Early Draft
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Early Draft
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:58:59 +0100
I'l add something accordingly under Introduction, it fits best there for
now.
Regards,
Werner
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Werner Keil
<
>
wrote:
>
>
But the spec already does that:
>
>
>Many contributions came from JSR 275 [JSR-275] and JSR 108 [JSR-108],
>
earlier JCP approaches to Units of Measurement in Java.
>
>
Aside from that we could follow JSR 354's pattern with a chapter like this:
>
>
1.1 Expert group
>
This work is being conducted as part of JSR 354 under the Java Community
>
Process Program.
>
This specification is the result of the collaborative work of the members
>
of the JSR 354 Expert Group and the community at large.
>
The following persons have actively contributed to JavaMoney in
>
alphabetical order:
>
...
>
>
>
>
Werner
>
>
>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Leonardo Lima
>
<
>
>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Werner,
>
>
>
> I proposed that we specifically say JSR275 (which was a upcoming standard
>
> and as such had the right IP flow, I assume), Martin and Otavio (who are
>
> the active EG in the mailing list, other than the Spec Leads) in an
>
> Acknowledgement session in the JSR.
>
>
>
> I didn't understand from your email. Do you see a problem with this?
>
> [Y/N] :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Werner Keil
>
> <
>
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Actually for 354 I also helped the Spec a bit, other than that Anatole
>
>> did a lot of the work.
>
>> Everyone in the EG is developer and editor, and therefore gets credit
>
>> simply on https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=363 already.
>
>> The POMs also make a difference between "developers" which in this case
>
>> mean EG Members and "contributors" which can be supporters of the JSR.
>
>>
>
>> Until JSR 364 is final offering other forms of participation e.g. as
>
>> "contributor" (which the POM could probably reflect just like that) it
>
>> means only EG Members can officially contribute to the JSR, but that is
>
>> documented on the JCP page, I know a few JSRs that put the list into
>
>> JavaDoc (e.g. MEEP 8) and we could copy the list of EG Members into the
>
>> spec, too if we want.
>
>>
>
>> People outside the EG especially "prior contributions" would be tricky
>
>> and problematic from an IP point of view. We're not allowed to take any
>
>> random piece of code or advice into a Java standard.
>
>>
>
>> HTH,
>
>> Werner
>
>>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
>>
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> I stop for now (it is 3:20 AM on my side). Still have lot of open
>
>>> issues, but hopefully should now be closer to the current API, have less
>
>>> invalid statements, and more formatting.
>
>>>
>
>>> Still, given the large amount of work by non-spec leaders (including
>
>>> work inherited from JSR-275), would be nice if some sort of
>
>>> acknowledgement were written somewhere in the document. I guess that in
>
>>> other JSR the spec leader usually act as editors. In this case the
>
>>> editor work has been largely done by non-spec leaders.
>
>>>
>
>>> Martin
>
>>>
>
>>>