| [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Shouldn't Creation Review include an initial plan? |
Committee members:
In the past, I think we have had some challenges with new specification project proposals when they didn't include planning details. I think we are repeating that cycle with the creation review for the Jakarta Query project.
If you recall, the
EFSP process lifecycle is ambiguous on this point but some
have pushed the idea that the creation review ought to have some
content that identifies goals, milestones, or aspirations.
Otherwise, they're going into the development phase with no stated
milestones, and we with no clear understanding when a
specification version might come into existence.
We are being asked to vote on creating this specification
project. The best detail we have describing it is written on the project
proposal page. This is a good overview, but all it says,
with respect to a schedule is that work will begin this year.
But, there isn't much, if anything that suggests what kinds of
milestone targets this specification might be attempting to
achieve. Should a draft be expected for a milestone this calendar
year? In time for EE 12? Should the working group be working to
generate some resourcing for it? If nothing else, I think the
review should state what the first milestone might be and, what,
if anything might happen after that.
I certainly want to encourage new specifications -- but my
recollection is, when we approve creation reviews, without knowing
what the plan is -- when it might be completed -- in this case,
when or if we might anticipate migrating and aligning requirements
from one specification to another (in the case of Jakarta Query, I
think the goal is to migrate requirements from Jakarta Data and
Jakarta Persistence -- but, when might that migration take place
and when should the impacted specifications be anticipating these
changes isn't even hinted at.
So ... should a creation review include a plan and/or milestone
objectives? (I think it should.)
If it should, I think the Jakarta Query proposal team should be asked to establish, at the least, preliminary goals so we can anticipate how this evolution might take place.
What do others think?
-- Ed