Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Presentation of Ballots for Release Revi

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The way I read your
note and the EFSP/JESP is that our process requires a single ballot for
the Specification Project.  But, now we're going to allow for multiple
ballots per Specification Project (one for each github repo).  That
sounds like a minor change that should be documented.

I'm not asking
for multiple Release Reviews.  Leave that as one for the Specification
Project.

---------------------------------------------------
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:
       Wayne
Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
       Kevin
Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       08/07/2019
05:07 PM
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Presentation of Ballots for Release Reviews

---

We could, but why?

Assuming that we get CDI ready for review
in the next few days, there's nothing to be gained by engaging in two separate
release reviews for the same project.

Wayne

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:38 PM Bill Shannon
<bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Actually, a Release Review for a project
doesn't need to include all of the content of the project.  Couldn't
we just do a Release Review of the CDI project that includes only the DI
component, then do another Release Review of the CDI project later that
includes the CDI component?

Kevin Sutter wrote on 8/7/19 1:37 PM:
Wayne,
Since we are allowing multiple repos per Specification Project, this voting
of individual repo specifications may become more common.  I think
your proposed workaround is fine for now.  But, we should log the
need to modify the EFSP/JESP to allow for multiple specification releases
within a single Specification Project.  Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------
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:        Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        08/07/2019
03:29 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Presentation of Ballots for Release Reviews
Sent by:        jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Wayne Beaton wrote on 8/7/19 12:59 PM:
Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee,

This is not the call for the ballot. Rather, this is a proposal for how
the ballot will be presented.

The JESP/EFSP requires a ballot on the release of each Specification
Project. Jakarta Dependency Injection is one of two specifications
"owned" by the Jakarta Contents and Dependency Injection Specification
Project. 

I propose, that rather than wait for CDI, we push forward on this specification
individually, with an understanding that the ballot for both this specification
and for the CDI Specificationmust be completed successfully before
the release review for the CDI Specification Project can be declared
successful (i.e. one release review for the project, and one ballot for
each specification). I think that this will be less confusing for the community.
There's a mutual dependency here, right?  The specification review
can't be declared successful until the release review is complete, right?

Regarding the content of the ballot request, I propose that the call for
the ballot include links to the related PRs which contain all of the relevant
information. The ballot request will look something like this:

I need your vote to approve the Jakarta Dependency Injection 1.0 release.

The relevant materials are available here:

https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/63
https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/64

Per the process, this will be a fourteen day ballot, ending on August 22/2019.
I require a Super-majority positive vote of the Specification Committee
members. Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification
Committee Representatives will be counted. 

The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta
EE Working Group Member Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Red Hat,
Tomitribe), along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant
Members, and Committer Members.
Do we have a public web site listing committee membership yet?  If
so, you could just point to it.


Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested.
Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject).  Any
feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.
 
Do we need anything else included in the ballot call? 

I'll send this out to the public list tomorrow. Let me know ASAP if you
have any concerns.
Looks good to me, thanks!
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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.