Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: Get clarity on process for obtaining consent to add a spec to EE11
I second everything David wrote! 
Have a discussion first, either on the mailing list or in a GitHub issue. Then if there is interest, do a vote on the mailing list for full transparency. I would keep the DISCUSS and VOTE threads separate for each candidate specification, so it is not an ordering where we pick one "winner". 

We did discuss adding MVC to EE 10 in a GitHub issue: https://github.com/jakartaee/jakartaee-platform/issues/381 
Since it was apparent that there wasn't much interest in adding it, a vote was never even started.

Ivar

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 4:54 AM Edward Burns via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Replies inline, prefixed by edburns:

 

From: David Blevins dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 20:37

On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Edward Burns via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[…good stuff…]

  • Start a time-bound DISCUSS thread on the list. I suggest 14 days.

 

A discuss thread is a great start.  I can see the 14 day discussion period being contentious.  If we had a little time (or had started the discussion earlier), I’d recommend we let the conversation go till it everyone is talked out and it goes quiet for a few days in a row.

 

I’ll note that we do have time if we wanted it.  An approach to that would be to simply say in our Plan Review that we’re considering adding specs x, y, and z.  Then we take the time we think we need and voluntarily submit a Progress Review.

 

We haven’t actually used a Progress Review in this project yet and they are optional, but it is a great way to defer some decisions we felt should have gone into a Plan Review.

 

That all said, I’d still try what you mention as plan A and deferring as plan B.  I think it will be pretty clear if the discussion is still  active when the 14 days is done.

  • At the end of the DISCUSS thread, send new emails to point to the chosen ranked choice polling tool to conduct the ballots. I plan to have two ballots, in sequence, that allow voters to rank their desired choices.
    • In/Out for all possible combinations of MVC, Data, JNoSQL, without regard to which platform spec they will go into.
    • With the winners from the In/Out ballot, another ballot that determines what platform spec they will go into.
    • I'll let the voting go for one week.

 

I’m a huge supporter of ranked-choice voting for things where there is a limit to how many winners there can be.  In this case, we’re not constrained and “no winners” needs to be a valid option.

 

I.e. if people can only cast votes for a spec to be included and can’t vote against a spec being included, how would that work?

 

edburns: I was thinking the ballot should consist of all the possible choices of {MVC, Data, JNoSQL, and none}, similar to the distinguishable balls in indistinguishable boxes problem. Voters would then rank their choices and the winner would be selected. For example, {none, none, none} is a valid vote. Yes, the ballot would be long, but that’s not a problem.

 

Ed

 

| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095

| Calendar Booking: https://aka.ms/meetedburns

|

| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside

| of your normal working hours.

|

| Reply anonymously to this email: https://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/contact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev


--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration. 

Back to the top