This was the reply from the EMO when I asked if splitting the spec into two would require a restructuring review:
---
Hi Scott. If I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't sound like the Jakarta CDI project scope needs to change.
I believe that these changes can be included in the plan review (with corresponding ballot approval from the specification committee) that is required by the EFSP at the beginning of each development cycle.
If my assessment that the scope doesn't chance is incorrect, we can roll a restructuring review into the plan review and get them both done at the same time.
----
Maybe we just need to schedule a call with Wayne to be sure everyone is in agreement with the steps that need to be performed.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:53 PM Ivar Grimstad via ee4j-pmc <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, you are right. Both specifications will have to go through the specification process with independent ballots. This is no different from existing projects producing multiple specifications. E.g. the Platform Project (that scope should be updated as well as it does not mention Core Profile at all, but that is another thread, I guess...).
Here's the revised suggestion (after Ed's restructuring review of my previous suggestion):
1. The CDI project writes an updated scope statement and submits it to the EMO for review. The EMO will decide if a restructuring review is needed or not according to the EDP.
2. The CDI project presents a revised plan for CDI to the Specification Committee
The Specification Committee will decide if a new plan review is needed according to the EFSP.
3. The CDI project presents a plan for creation-/plan review for the new specification to the Specification Committee
The Specification Committee will run the ballot for the new specification according to the EFSP.
My concern is, now there will be two specifications, two ballots
where before there was one. Where will we have defined the scope
the distinguishes one specification from the other. I would
recommend this be formalized with a restructuring review.
Otherwise the scope now must cover whatever happens to either
specification -- in that case, where is that scope documented? How
would someone, in 5 years trace this back.
-- Ed
On 9/8/2023 12:31 AM, Ivar Grimstad via
ee4j-pmc wrote:
Hi,
I don't think a restructuring review is needed as long as the
scope of the project is the same. The granularity of the
released artifacts doesn't affect this scope, so you should be
good to go with your planned releases.
Ivar
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:37 PM
Scott Stark via ee4j-pmc <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It was suggested that the current split of the
CDI specification into a core part and an integration part
should entail a restructuring review like was done for
security:
and I don't see a restructuring review as one of the types
under the create new release option. Are we fine to just
create a CDI EE 4.1 release and update the CDI 4.1 release
to reference that the integration chapters are being moved
into the CDI EE 4.1 release?