I've drafted and discarded at least 4 responses to this message.
There is no one right way to make decisions for the platform. There
are reasons to support any of the proposed approaches, but I don't
find any of them so compelling that they stand out from the rest.
I'm not even convinced that my preferred approach is the
best approach.
We purposely made some changes to how the JCP did things for years.
Instead of having a single Spec Lead, we now have a team of people.
I think we should start by letting that team self-organize, as has
been happening so far. I think it's too early to declare that
approach a failure and to open up the decision making body even
further. We can anticipate some of the potential failure modes for
the current approach (which I'll call "decisions by platform project
team committers") so let's work to mitigate those risks rather than
change to a completely different approach (e.g., something like
what Kevin described - "decisions by representatives of all the
major components").
So, I think we should do as Kevin described and "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." After all, I believe that's the job of a platform
project committer.
And let's do this in an open and transparent manner so that
community members can point out where we've failed to take into
account the needs of the entire platform.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 11/14/19 8:45 AM:
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
|
