Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Recent Edits

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2018-05-24 11:16 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:

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.

There is no such thing as a stupid question :)

Expanding the scope of the exercise to draft a generic specification process is definitely outside the terms of reference for the Jakarta EE Specification Committee. But it has also been an excellent tactic for making progress. I thought the conversations got much more efficient once we stopped conflating what we wanted to accomplish with Jakarta EE with what we want in a spec process. So for the time being, I suggest we just continue to roll with that approach until it stops working.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223