Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Specification Committee call agenda, Oct

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree, Bill, that we haven't defined
who owns the overall architecture of Jakarta EE.  I think we determined
yesterday that the Spec Committee does not own this architecture.  From
past conversations, I think we have also agreed that it's not the EE4J
PMC.  So, is it the Platform project?  This might be the logical
choice, but we haven't defined that role yet.  We need to put this
definition and anointing on our list of things to do...

---------------------------------------------------
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



From:      
 Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:      
 10/03/2018 06:23 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
Specification Committee call agenda, October 3/2018
Sent by:    
   jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Wayne Beaton wrote on 10/ 3/18 07:51 AM:
Roles of the PMC and Specification Committee:

PMC manages the governance process, and provides oversight. They ensure
that the open source rules of engage are observed and the EDP as a whole
is followed. They participate in the Intellectual Property process to ensure
that requests for review are technically sound (e.g. ensure that the use
of third party content makes technical sense). They provide best practices.
The PMC owns the software "stack" (i.e. their view spans the
concerns of all subprojects). The PMC tends to work more at the development/technical
level.
 
Specification Committee owns the overall vision of how
all the different specifications fit together. <strike>They provide
a channel for intellectual property flows (I may not be expressing this
correctly).</strike> The Specification Committee provides oversight
for the implementation of the EFSP and certification process on behalf
of the Working Group, owns the process of promoting and maintaining Final
Specifications
 
Approvals from both parties are required for lifecycle
Reviews.
 
The PMC is in the Project Leadership Chain; the Specification
Committee is not.
As discussed in today's meeting, the problem with the
above is that it seems like both the PMC and the Spec Committee are providing
"architecture" and/or "vision" for the projects.

Somebody has to define the architecture and somebody has to check that
the result fits with the architecture.  I expected that the Spec Committee,
like the JCP EC, was doing the latter.  I'm not sure whether it's
the PMC or the "platform project" that does the former.

There's a theoretical problem here if one group defines the architecture
and another group gets to say "I don't approve what you've done because
I disagree with the architecture".  I think we solve that in
practice by having many of the same individuals/companies involved in both
the creation and the approval.

I'd love it if the FAQ included examples of the kinds of activities or
decisions that the PMC and the Spec Committee engage in, something more
concrete than "oversight" and "ensure the EDP is followed".


The term "profile" is a flag for marking specifications
that extend branding privileges to Compatible Implementations. Further,
we apply special voting requirements to profiles, so we need a definition.
Do we need the term "platform" to be formally specified as part
of the process? What is special about platforms (with respect to the process)?
I'm fine with keeping it in the process document but not
saying much about it.

Is the use of this terminology sufficient?

"Compatible Implementation: is any implementation
that fulfills all requirements of a Specification Version as demonstrated
by fulfilling all requirements of the TCK."

Are these statements sufficient?
Yes.


A Compatible Implementation must fully implement all non-optional
elements of a Specification Version, must not not extend the API (no supersetting),
and must fulfill all requirements of the corresponding TCK. 

Is it sufficient to require that just one Compatible
Implement fully implement a specification, including all optional elements?
Yes.

(Fix "not not" above.)


A Specification Version must identify at least oneCompatible Implementation under an Open Source License that implements
all optional elements of the Specification and fulfills the requirements
of all elements (including optional elements) of the TCK.

By way of clarification, when we say that a CI must implement
all optional elements, does this apply to the prerequisites? e.g. (hypothetical)
if one has to implement all optional elements of the JSP specification;
does one have to also implement all optional elements of the servlet specification,
or only those optional elements of the servlet specification that the JSP
specification requires be implemented? 

The answer to this question, should be an FAQ entry.
Depends on the requirements of the JSP specification. 
If the JSP specification doesn't depend on some optional elements of the
Servlet specification, the full JSP CI wouldn't need to implement those
optional elements of the Servlet specification.  In general, a JSP
CI wouldn't be implementing the Servlet spec at all, but would require
a Servlet CI to run on.

Do we need to make it clear that adding a Compatible Implementation
to a Final Specification does not change the Final Specification? i.e.
no ceremony is required. IMHO, the process by which Compatible Implementations
get added is an implementation detail.
What does it mean to "add" a Compatible Implementation
to a Final Specification?

As I've said previously, the specification document should not refer to
any implementations.  The Project Review should include information
about Compatible Implementations.  Once the review is complete, there's
no need to update that information, but we might want to separately maintain
a list of Compatible Implementations for a given spec.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee