[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] What are we "voting" on tomorrow's Spec Comm

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
We had a good discussion on today's
Spec Committee call about whether formal Spec Project votes will
be required as part of the Spec process.  I believe it was David who
proposed it (or advocated for it) and Bill had a dissenting viewpoint.
 We decided to table the discussion and come back to it on tomorrow's
(Thursday) call.

Well...  I just had a discussion
with Dan and it's not clear on what we are trying to decide tomorrow.  If
Dan and I are not on the same understanding of the problem, then I would
guess that others might have the same confusion.  Or, maybe it's just
us...  :-)

Dan and I discussed the "bad actor"
scenario...  How do we prevent a "bad actor" or a "malicious
participant" from pushing through the Spec process with their own
agenda?  Dan's argument is that by having these Spec Project votes,
then this type of activity could be detected earlier in the process.  But,
that only works if every Working Group participant (organization) is also
participating in every Spec Project.  There will be cases where some
Working Group participant (ie. IBM, Oracle, Payara, ...) may not have an
interest in directly participating in a Spec Project.  That happens
today with JSRs, it will happen with Spec Projects.

But, that doesn't meant that IBM (as
an example) is not interested in knowing what this Spec Project is producing.
 Thus, some type of interim reviews need to be surfaced to the Spec
Committee to allow the Working Group participants access to the
results of the Spec Projects.  Just having the initial Spec Project
creation and the final Spec Project review is not sufficient (or the modification
of the Spec Project scope).  We need to define some type of formal
interim spec review process that allows the Spec Committee to review and
vote on the progress of the Project.

I know that Wayne was trying to avoid
the definition of these interim reviews in the Spec Process document, but
we think it's needed.  Having Spec Project votes without all of the
Working Group participants participating and voting doesn't accomplish
this.  So, our take is that the formal Spec Project votes are not
required.  But, having interim Spec reviews and votes by the Spec
Committee are required.

I think this is more consistent with
with Bill was arguing for as well.  But, maybe I'm just off base.
 Let's just make sure that we're all on the same page with what we're
trying to decide tomorrow.  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter