I've resolved the existing comments where I could, and have applied the changes that we discussed on our last two calls.
Specifically...
I've inserted a bullet #3 to indicate that projects must engage in at least one review per year. I included "while in active development" to avoid the case where a specification project for a stable specification might be compelled to engage in a review despite there being zero activity. In practical terms, this means that once a project engages in a plan review, the clock starts. I've added some content to the operations document ("Developing Specifications"; WIP).
I decided to remove the Steering Committee from notification requirement (in what is now bullet #4) since the Steering Committee is not listed as being on the hook for approval anywhere else in this document or in the EFSP. If anybody feels strongly about this, we might consider making the ballot be similar to that as for designating a profile (i.e. Super-majority of the strategic members of the working group).
I tried to roll the input from Mike and discussion on today's call in to the final statement about precedence. It feels close to me, but please poke holes in it.
I added a statement on a request from the Oracle lawyers that all modifications to the javax namespace must be done following the JESP. Note that all Eclipse projects are required to respect trademarks owned by others, and so it would be inappropriate for an Eclipse project to implement something in the "javax" namespace without permission anyway. It certainly doesn't hurt (IMHO) to reinforce this here.
While I was there, I decided that it needed some sort of preamble, so I added a paragraph with a single sentence to the top of the document.
Please make suggested edits directly in the document.
By way of reminder, our immediate goal is have a JESP that provides what we need to get started with specification projects. We're getting really close to having all of the documentation (MCCA, WGPA) that we need to start converting the existing projects into specification projects. I'd very much like to get this off the critical path so that we're ready to go when the paperwork is all sorted out.
We can evolve this process relatively quickly when we find deficiencies (apparently, with thirty days' notice).
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
