Hi all,
Have had another decent read through. Overall it's in really good shape! A few comments (apologies if this ground has been covered before). Please note that this is my personal views and not that of the existing LJC JCP Committee (we're meeting on the 8th of March to discuss this further).
Thanks again to the folks who put this together - it's refreshing to read a sane governance doc :-).
Branding
* Is it worth now replacing "EE.Next" with "Jakarta EE" now that we know?
Membership
The existing version states:
An entity must be at least a Solutions Member of the Eclipse Foundation, have executed the EE.next Participation Agreement once defined, and adhere to the requirements set forth in this Charter to participate.
....
I know there's another thread debating membership, but I'd personally raise a red flag to needing to be
at least a Solutions Member in order to participate. My understanding is that
Solutions Members are pretty much vendors or orgs planning on releasing some commercial software based on an eclipse project. This wouldn't be strictly true for say a Java User Group or Open Source project team looking to contribute to EE.next (Jakarta EE). Perhaps that clause needs to be removed?
Pretty sure this has been raised and I just missed it, if so my apologies again.
Steering vs Specification Committee
Would be useful to have a clear bullet point for each on who has the governance / authority on specification issues (legal / IP flow / compliance / conformance / licensing) which I assume should be the specification committee vs say the technical concerns (e.g. Does sub project X really fit given that it's CORBA?, Is sub project Y actually fit for purpose?)
It just seemed a little blurred to me. I'm happy to help draft some wording if that helps?
Specification Committee
The existing version has a bullet point:
Approve profiles which define collections of specifications which meet a particular market requirement.
Not sure if the community / vendors etc agreed that there would be profiles? Perhaps a caveat needs to be applied there.
Marketing and Brand Committee
Yes, yes, yes - I know us engineers want to ignore this most of the time, but this committee will actually be of vital importance to Jakarta EE.
Enterprise Requirements Committee
I'll be blunt and say I don't understand the purpose of this entire committee. If you want to give input into the platform then you have the individual projects an the steering committee. I think we're moving away from a 'Expert Group' type model to an Open Source project model of governance, so I think this is superfluous.
Fees
0 fees - love it.
