Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Updating spec pages (was: Fwd:[jakartaee/specifications] Nosql Status update (#333))
David's assertion that "non final specifications don't have Compatible Implementations" is correct by definition. That is, the EFSP defines a Compatible Implementation as "Any implementation that fulfills all requirements of a Final Specification as demonstrated by fulfilling all requirements of the associated TCK."

Patent grants flow out of a specification through the final specification. The patent license grant describes the timing of the patent grant. All Jakarta EE projects use the Compatible Patent License (you can see this on the "Governance" page in the PMI, e.g. Jakarta Authentication) which unleashes the patent grant when an implementation becomes a Compatible Implementation (that is, when it passes the TCK of the ratified Final Specification).

Reviews manage the flow of patent rights into the specification. Patent rights flow through the committers into the specification and are "locked in" at the time a review is declared successful. The "lock in" is based on who holds committer status at the time of the review. That is, grants flow in for the patents associated with those individuals who hold committer status at the time of the review.

Theoretically, a member could get their committers to retire before a review and any grants for that member's patents associated with content added since the last successful review would not flow into the specification. Based on this, one might think that it makes sense to do as many reviews as you possibly can. Yes, there is something "legally positive that happens as the result of Progress Reviews", but we all have other things to do and can't be doing reviews all the time. 

There are two reasons to do a progress review.

First, we want to make sure that the specification work is progressing, that it is progressing in manner that aligns with the approved plan, and that it is progressing in manner that will likely result in a successful release review and ratification.

Second, we want to make sure that the natural ebb and flow of committers joining and leaving the project, changing employers, etc. doesn't negatively impact the flow of patent grants.

Over a long enough period of time, both of these reasons are increasingly likely to become a problem. When we wrote the process, we decided that one year was a reasonable maximum amount of time for a specification project to run without checking in.

So, if there is reason to believe that specification work is going off on a tangent, there is some risk that committer status changes will impact the flow of patent grants, or there is some other cause for concern, the specification committee can compel a specification project to engage in a progress review. Per the EFSP, " The Specification Committee may, at their discretion, demand that the project team engage in additional Progress Reviews." If the specification committee decides that additional reviews are required for any reason, they can compel them on an ad hoc basis (the specification committee should use these powers judiciously).

IMHO, publishing a milestone (beta, alpha, nightly, ...) build does not in itself require a review. Note that milestone (beta, alpha, nightly, ...) builds must be intended for "limited distribution to demonstrate progress and solicit feedback." It must be very clear to anybody who might stumble upon milestone builds that they are not intended for general consumption, and--in particular--do not convey any patent grants. It seems natural to me that the specification page for an in-progress specification version will be updated from time-to-time.

Does that make sense?

Wayne


On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:54 PM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just to be clear, non final specs don’t have Compatible Implementations.

-David

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:55 PM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote:

And as I’m not sure, if that was put into the minutes, a key reason why Jakarta NoSQL plus its compatible implementation (I am not aware, that a Progress review of the Spec or API without a matching implementation makes sense) might take one or the other month is the ongoing discussion about a proper Jakarta Config solution and the lack of Jakarta EE 9 support by the existing MP Config API.

 

Werner

 

Von: Kevin Sutter
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. April 2021 15:27
An: Jakarta specification discussions
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Updating spec pages (was: Fwd:[jakartaee/specifications] Nosql Status update (#333))

 

I will second Ivar's description of the meeting yesterday.  Since NoSQL is "(under development)", then updating preliminary versions of their specs, apis, tcks, etc should be a normal development practice.  We shouldn't require additional process to keep this development page up-to-date (other than a Spec Committee member review, approval, and merge).

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:        Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        04/08/2021 01:15
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec] Updating spec pages (was: Fwd: [jakartaee/specifications] Nosql Status update (#333))
Sent by:        "jakarta.ee-spec" <jakarta.ee-spec-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>




Hi David,

It was decided on the Spec Committee call yesterday that small updates (such as updating to a new Milestone of the artifacts) are OK as long as the update is for a Non-Final version of the spec that is under development. 
The key here is Under Development. Everyone present agreed. Ed was there as well. 

For this special case, NoSQL is not due for a progress review within the next 6 months. According to the JESP, they can produce milestones as they wish without any review from the specification committee. 
Keeping this page up-to-date seems like the right thing to do.

Ivar

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:44 PM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know Ed and myself have both raised the point we think what appears on the spec pages should represent what has actually been approved by the spec committee via the JESP.  Ed, feel free to clarify as needed.

Raising this up so we do not consider this action to be setting precedent and there is still room to discuss for future PRs.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ivar Grimstad <notifications@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakartaee/specifications] Nosql Status update (#333)
Date: April 7, 2021 at 6:56:37 AM PDT
To: jakartaee/specifications <specifications@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: jakartaee/specifications <reply+AAAXFTS37LOUCG4PUUELNQ56PGNRLEVBNHHDBTVDAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


As discussed on the spec committee call today, this is good to go.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec




--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation- Community. Code. Collaboration. _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec

 

 

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec


--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation

Back to the top