| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Formal Proposal and Public vote record for Jakarta NoSQL |
David,
I don't think we need to re-do the NoSQL project. Maybe the process wasn't perfect, but it's done.
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.nosql
The one thing I'm not clear on is whether this NoSQL project is a Specification Project or a normal Development Project. We need some mechanism to clearly and easily differentiate that. So, if NoSQL is not provisioned as a Specification Project, then maybe we could it through the restructuring process like we're doing with the rest of the Jakarta projects that contain specifications.
But, if it's already a Specification Project, then I'd say we could just wait until the next project idea comes along to test the processes.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta 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: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/14/2019 05:04 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Formal Proposal and Public vote record for Jakarta NoSQL
Sent by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I'm fine we table even this discussion till after Jakarta EE 8.
The simple statement is since we didn't really have a formal proposal for NoSQL and a formal vote with a public record, we don't really have anything to point out we say "this is how we work." Bill called this out very early and recommended we go back and follow the formal process when we had it.
Do we want to do this at some point? Specifically the two assets the exercise would give us:
- A template on how to propose projects -- initiating a Creation Review
- A format to follow for publishing the results of a Creation Review
Again, I'm fine if we push this to October. It would be nice to have a formal proposal and formal vote on record, even if after the fact. Something like this:
- proposal https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=382#2
- vote results https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=6061
Our process could be as simple as a github issue filed in a specific "jesp" repo or "specification-committe" repo. Something a little better than meeting minutes, but not quite as fancy as writing new software.
If we maintained a repo with a curated list of JESPs in any state, we could potentially facilitate state changes (the different reviews we do), but having the project in question submit a PR. We do the review and merge the PR or not based on our vote.
This is me brainstorming. Open to other ideas. I'll see if I can create a sample repo that might be in the format we could accept.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
310-633-3852
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.