That’s not the case, didn’t you see Wayne’s reply here > My intent is to clarify that a project leads have no special status or privilege with regard to specification development. Everyone in a project has exactly one vote, if e.g. new committers (or a new or additional project lead) are voted on, a single “No” vote is a veto, whether it comes from a project lead or any other committer. You mix the fact that EVERY initial committer (not just the project lead) gets named when a project is proposed with any decision that happens later where everyone has a vote and everyone can veto certain votes with a single vote against it. While I’m also a member of the platform project (based on the Java EE 8 EG, as mentioned) I cannot always join the call unfortunately because there are others like the Spec Committee call on different days. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 In fact, unless committers are granted the voting rights discussed here, project leads de-facto do have more proviliges. This is actually is what this discussion is about in the end in this thread. -Markus Von: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Wayne Beaton
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. November 2019 19:21
An: jakartaee-platform developer discussions
Betreff: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] "voting" privileges "Spec Lead" carries connotations that do not apply in the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process. My intent is to clarify that a project leads have no special status or privilege with regard to specification development. I think we all agree that with "spec lead" we mean "project lead of a spec project". -Markus There is no notion of "Specification Lead" in the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process. An Eclipse project may have one or more "Project Leads". But that role is primarily about ensuring that the team is correctly engaging with the process and liaising with the EMO. In case of JAX-RS the spec lead is not voted and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the active committers. So at least for JAX-RS there would a clear difference between whom you ask. -Markus Hi Kevin, I have given this some thought and here are my thoughts. Assuming that every specification has active committers and/or a lead that represents the project who can provide input for the Platform Committers, why shouldn't this suffice? What is exactly the issues that you see there? Is it the impact or sheer amount of work that has not been estimated yet for every specification and/or who is going to do the actual work? Or is it (maybe additionally) not clear yet how feedback loops between specifications and platform should work? What would it mean if every Committer for the whole platform can start voting? Will that change the weight of the votes, and will that change in the way that it solves the issues that you see? I hope 'm not completely off with my answer, I want to better understand all of this. :) Hi,
On our Platform Dev call on Tuesday (minutes soon to be posted here: https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/minutes/minutes.html), we discussed who should be eligible to vote on the Jakarta EE 9 content proposals. We decided that only thecommitters on the Platform projectwould be eligible.
But, on second thought, I'm wondering if that's sufficient. The Jakarta EE 9 roadmap that we're trying to get agreement on affects all of the Jakarta EE components, not just the platform. I know we discussed that the reps on the Platform should be representing their overall interests (including components) and not just the Platform. But, is that sufficient?
On yesterday's Jakarta EE Updatecall, there was discussion about how much work it is to Jakarta-ize the Specifications. And, we talked about the work required to do the javax->jakarta package rename (spec, api, tck, compatible impls, etc). Markus presented and discussed these topics on how they relate to the JAX-RS effort. Markus is not directly represented on the Platform project -- that is, he doesn't work for or with any of the committers. He is driving much of the work for the JAX-RS effort. How do we ensure that voices (like Markus') from all of the Component features are heard and counted when we make the decisions for Jakarta EE 9?
One idea is to expand our eligible voting pool to include any committer on any of the EE4J Specification projects. I have no idea on how easy it would be discern or filter the various votes, but that seems to be a more equitable means of voting.
Or, we can fall back to our original premise to trust the committer reps on the Platform project to take into account all of the various component's views when they cast their vote.
Thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
-- Wayne Beaton Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
-- Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc. |
