Mike Milinkovich wrote on 05/24/2018 12:48 AM:
On 2018-05-23 5:12 PM, Bill Shannon
wrote:
Mike Milinkovich wrote on 05/22/18 10:15 PM:
On 2018-05-22 11:21 PM, Bill
Shannon wrote:
Will
those rules thus be decided by EF and consistent
across all TCKs from all projects?
Well that's actually a tough question. The JCP
allowed Spec Leads to license TCKs as they saw fit.
Red Hat uses the ALv2 for its TCKs for example. So
this definitely has to be discussed. But I am
searching for solutions which are consistent. The
JCP Spec Lead approach is *not* going to work at the
Eclipse Foundation because there is no Spec Lead
which acquires special IP rights. So what worked
before will not necessarily work here.
The EFTLA could simply require that you "pass" the TCK,
where each TCK could define what it means to "pass".
The TCK rules would only apply when using the EFTLA, not
when using the TCK under its open source license. Would
that give too much freedom to TCK authors and too little
consistency across TCKs? Or would consistency be
enforced by the PMC?
I think that if there are TCK consistency requirements
they enforced by the Spec Committee, not the PMC.
(I guess at this point I'm thinking of the Spec Committee as
more like the JCP PMO - defining the rules that we'll
operate under. You're suggesting that it will also operate
more like the JCP EC - approving all the specs.
Yes, that was always my viewpoint. There has to be some body
that adopts the specifications, and that body needs to be in
the Jakarta EE Working Group, not in the PMC.
Should it not be the Working Group itself? Is the Working Group
not playing an analogous role to the JCP EC? Or do you believe
the Working Group has delegated this responsibility to the Spec
Committee? (I probably don't understand the formal relationship
between the Working Group and the Spec Committee.)
I don't understand the source of confusion. In my mind this is
laid out clearly in the Jakarta
EE Working Group Charter via the "powers and duties" section
of each of the committees. Can you please take a look and let us
know if we need to revise this governance document?
The reason you're not confused is that you wrote the
charter. I'm still learning it, and haven't internalize it yet. I
admit that I don't read it before every conversation, and I
sometimes find myself going down a path that is confusing.
Per the charter, we're not expected to be defining a
reusable process. We only need to define a process for Jakarta EE.
But based on our discussions, it seems that we've expanded our
charter. So it seems that we're working with a set of goals or
requirements that are beyond what's described in the charter.
I'm not disagreeing with any of this, just trying to explain why I'm
sometimes confused and ask stupid questions.
|
