Just to throw some light on the issue, I believe Amelia is referring to the fact we went from no logo being talked about publicly to a complete process in place, with defined steps and dates.
My guess is she's asking for more transparency on how we went from "checking the WG's charter" to "fully built WGs with ongoing projects in the works".
I don't agree with most of it myself, but there is one thing that worries me:
Who is actually deciding all this?
As far as I remember, every single WG in the JakartaEE project is 50% composed of elected members... And I don't remember there being elections for a dozen seats in the last 2 weeks (since the charter was last amended).
So, there SHOULDN'T be any WG to decide anything.
I believe THAT is the crux of her issue. That all this is being decided behind closed doors.
The process itself seems transparent enough: public submissions, legal team checking for viable logos, community vote at the end.
I'd like it more if we didn't just have to vote from the N logos privately chosen as best. I believe it would be better if we were given every single submission that passes any legal wrangling needed, but that's not a show-stopper.
But the fact we've got the logo decision in place when the group that should be doing this has not been formed yet, and no public anything on this until the submissions were open, DOES raise some concerns.
Regards,
Mariano
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit