| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: Moving Jakarta CDI and Jakarta Config forward |
Along with the need for a creation review, I'll note there is not yet a CDI 4 proposal for EE 10 or any other Jakarta EE release for that matter. -- I believe the ballot could also include the plan/proposal for work that will be focused on Jakarta EE 10. In this respect, I believe the creation review can serve both purposes.
If we don't wish to include the plan details in the project re-start creation review, we could hold a separate ballot to cover the plan/proposal for EE 10 work. I guess that would then be a "Progress Review" or, we could hold a "plan" review. (I'm looking at this diagram to suggest what ought to be done). Though I'd be happy with the CDI 4 plan included in the project restart creation ballot.
Regardless, I recommend we also get the work that is going on now -- CDI Lite, etc. on record.
Thanks,
-- Ed
PS Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous calling it CDI 4. Of course, you can set the version as necessary.
On 9/10/2021 11:20 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Greetings Specification Committee.
I have drafted a review record for the Jakarta CDI re-creation. I believe that the description captures the essence of what we need to accomplish.
Since we are -- at least according to the process -- creating a new project, I need you to initiate and execute a ballot to approve the creation. Per the Jakarta EE Specification Process, such a ballot requires two weeks.
I believe (and the CDI project representatives on the committee can correct me if I'm wrong) that the only difference between the current and future versions of the project is the selection of patent license. To be as clear as possible, the re-created Jakarta CDI project will use the Implementation Patent License.
If further discussion is required before you are ready to initiate the ballot, please have that discussion and start the ballot when you are ready to do so (for reference/template, your most recent call for a creation ballot is here).
I will initiate the process of getting PMC approval and committer agreement to continue on the re-created project after you've resolved your concerns and have initiated the ballot.
As we discussed on the call earlier this week, the next release of Jakarta CDI following our success here requires a release review even if it is a service release. The EFSP regards a creation review as a suitable replacement for a plan review. I defer to the specification committee's wisdom regarding whether or not an additional plan review is required.
I recommend that you capture any concerns that you have regarding this review, follow up activity, or any other aspect of this endeavor as comments/threads on the tracking issue where they can be discussed and resolved in an open and transparent manner.
Wayne
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:59 AM Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee.
I'm going to join your call today to discuss these topics. In preparation for this, here is some background.
Regarding Jakarta CDI...
We cannot change the patent license on an existing specification project. We can, however, create a new specification project that uses existing content. Unfortunately, standing up a new project requires some investment in time. So, to avoid as much churn as possible (while following the EDP, the EFSP, and IP Policy), the EMO intends to leverage the ability to combine reviews.
Specifically, we intend to combine a termination and creation review. We will, through this review, terminate the existing Jakarta CDI specification project and then recreate it in place (but skip the part where we archive and then unarchive the project resources, retire and then reappoint committers, etc). I've described the process that we're going to follow with some detail on the tracking issue.
Regarding Jakarta Config...
You may recall that the patent license was changed midway through the creation review ballot for the Jakarta Config specification project. The process lumbered on anyway and we wound up creating the project before we detected the error. AFAIK, there has been no activity on the project (i.e., no intellectual property has been committed) which leaves us in a position to fix the error.
I believe that the project team wants to move the project forward with the Compatible Patent License. If this is still the case, then -- given that the steering committee has selected the Implementation Patent License as the default patent license -- approval from the steering committee for the exception is required. With the matter of the selection of the patent license for the project settled, we will need to re-run the creation review ballot. With ballot approval, the project will be good-to-go.
So... if the specification committee has strong opinions regarding the project's selection of patent license, then we will need you to engage with the project team to sort out the choice. Otherwise, the EMO will engage with the project team to validate that they intend to move forward with the Compatible Patent License. If an exception from the steering committee is required, the EMO will ask the specification committee to make that petition.
When the selection of patent license is settled the EMO will task the specification committee with initiating the required ballot.
Thanks,
Wayne--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________ jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!cAopFxTV7jgsVwp82N4twVmZlqSvMeqiKAbWj2jeDfZNHx5xXBLVsVvtPNJIrD0$_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee