| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] What are we "voting" on tomorrow's Spec Committee call? |
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.
Specification Projects must engage in a number of Reviews during each Release cycle. The number and timing of the reviews is determined by the Specification Committee. The Specification Committee may opt to give names to the Reviews (e.g. “Early Draft Review”). These Reviews are distinct and separate from the Reviews defined by the Eclipse Development Process.
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.
--------------------------------------------------- https://www.linkedin.com/in/
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn:kevinwsutter
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee- spec.committee