[jsr294-modularity-eg] Runtime model

[Bryan Atsatt]

Andreas Sterbenz wrote:
> Bryan Atsatt wrote:
>>> Of course it is a collaborative process.
>> If so, is it unreasonable of me to expect a response to the model I 
>> described?
> 
> I responded to the parts that I saw issue with. For the rest I did not 
> have major comments, so it did not seem necessary to respond one by one. 
> Silence does not imply disapproval. 

But, Andreas, you were not silent. You explicitly cut off discussion 
about my comments, bluntly saying:

"We have not really gotten to details of the reflective API yet. Alex 
and I will send out a proposal soon."

I was simply trying to begin a discussion about the runtime/APIs. You 
squashed that, in a very offensive manner.

> It is easier for me (and I assume the rest of the EG) to evaluate a 
> proposal if its ideas are fully formulated and no major areas are left 
> blank. I don't think that is an unreasonable bar for proposals to the EG 
> to meet, whoever they come from.

It may not be unreasonable to you, but it is to me. Your idea of how to 
run a "collaborative" effort appears to eliminate working *together* to 
reach a design. You know, where everyone contributes ideas, discusses 
them and tries to reach a shared view? Where the spec lead(s) guide and 
drive that process, forcing decisions only when required?

> Also, Sun's responsibilities as spec lead include producing a 
> specification, a reference implementation, and a TCK. If we don't 
> understand a proposal to sufficiently to produce them, we cannot accept 
> it. That means if you make a proposal all of your own, you must commit to 
> working with us to get it into a shape from which we can take it the rest 
> of the way. Rights and responsibilities.

Sorry, again, I truly don't understand your view of the collaboration 
process. So either EG members produce a "full" proposal, "all of our 
own", and "commit to working with Sun", or... what? We don't get to 
contribute ideas?

The model you appear to be working from has the EG in the role of 
reviewers only. If that is all you want, why not just say so?

// Bryan