Wayne Beaton wrote on 9/10/18 2:13 PM:
Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee members!
I've made some updates to the draft Eclipse Foundation Specification
Process document based on our discussions on the last
call. Primarily, these updates are concerned with
consolidating on the term "Compatible Implementation" and
removing references to "Specification Implementation" and
changing "Independent Implementation" from a defined term to a
notion (e.g. "independent Compatible Implementation").
Sounds good.
I'd like to focus tomorrow's discussion on the following
topics. I'm going to recommend that we limit discussion on
each topic to 15 minutes each.
Participation
I think that what is intended is that a "Participant" in a
particular Specification Project:
- Is a member of the Eclipse Foundation, either as a
Member Company or as an individual Committer Member;
- Has signed a Working Group Participation Agreement; and
- Has at least one committer on the Specification Project
(or is a committer on the Specification Project in the
case of a Committer Member).
So for a Member Company, it's the Company that's the
Participant, not the individual representing the company, right? I
know in the JCP process document it got confusing when sometimes the
participant meant the company and sometimes it meant the individual,
and we have to rewrite some sections to make it clear. We'll need
to check the EFSP document to make sure it doesn't have any of these
problems.
Does an individual Committer Member have the same
ability to appoint a Committer representative as a Member
Company? i.e. can a Member Committer who has signed the
corresponding Working Group Participation Agreement have the
ability to appoint themselves as a committer on a
Specification Project? If yes, then we'll need to reassert the
"Member Participant" definition that I've removed. I'm
expecting that the term "Member Participant" might be
important in other documents/references.
I understand why companies want control over who represents their
interests. What's the motivation for an individual doing the same?
Subsetting
Let's avoid technical considerations (e.g how to
implement/run/interpret the TCK) in the process document. For
the purposes of the process document, it's enough to say "must
comply with the TCK" (or equivalent) and leave the rest as
implementation detail to be sorted out by the individual Working
Groups. If you disagree with this statement, let me know and
we'll table that discussion for a later session.
I had been pushing for a call regarding whether or not we
want to make the notion of subsetting explicit in the
document. Note that there are two different examples of
subsetting: (1) an implementation of a part of a
Specification, or (2) a Specification (or Profile) that
requires that only some subset of another Specification be
implemented.
The first example is a full-stop no: a Compatible
Implementation must implement all required parts of a
Specification Version.
I agree.
The case where a Specification Version requires that all
but the optional parts of another Specification Version be
implemented is okay and doesn't, I think, require further
discussion. Similarly, the case where a Specification
Version requires that the required and some optional parts
of another Specification Version be implemented is okay.
I agree.
If Specification A requires that some, but not all of
Specification B be implemented, then it's possible to have a
Compatible Implementation of Specification A while having an
incompatible implementation of Specification B. Is this
okay? i.e. Does the implementer get access to the patents
from Specification B if they don't fully implement that
specification? (no?) Does the implementer of Specification A
get access to the brand if they don't fully implement
Specification B? (probably)
I would not allow subsetting in this way.
Compatible
Implementations at the Eclipse Foundation
Have we agreed that there is a requirement that at least
one open source implementation be hosted a Eclipse
Foundation? Should that requirement be included in the
document?
That would be a problem for CDI, BV, and Batch.
|
