Re: [ee4j-community] Process Question

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

One clarification, Martijn on Question
5...  Otherwise, good responses to Ryan's questions.  Thanks.


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

ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/12/2017
02:58:22 PM:

> From: Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10/12/2017 02:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Process Question
> Sent by: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Hi Ryan,
> 
> As Mike previously mentioned a lot of this has to be worked out. 
> I'm hoping the project charter will be approved on the 23rd of Oct
> which will then allow the PMC to be formed and so on...
> 
> That said I'll take a stab at some of the likely directions.
> 
> On 12 October 2017 at 20:08, Ryan Cuprak <rcuprak@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hello,
>  I have a couple of questions regarding the path forward with
Java EE:
>  1. Are implementations going to “license” the name in some
legally 
> binding way?
> 
> I really don't know yet, but I'm sensing that most folks want some
> sort of certification / compliance pass mark.  Whether that's
a 
> legally binding license I think is up to the community to decide.
>  
>  2. Are there going to be requirements on
licenses, such as an 
> implementation has to support version X for Y number of years and
> release a new version within a specific period of time?
> 
> Same as above.
>  
>  3. How will enforcement of compliance be
done?
> 
> If compliance is mandated, then a TCK like mechanism would seem to
> be the common approach here (again, only if this what the community
wants it)
>  
>  4. What were Sun/Oracle’s license requirements?
Is that public by chance?
> 
> Mike covered that I think.
>  
>  5. Is the JCP process being totally tossed?
> 
> I'd say yes.  Oracle doesn't want EE4J governed in the JCP and
> frankly nor do any of the vendors and nor do a good chunk of the 
> users (I appreciate there are more than just 1 who would like it to
> stay there).  Again I feel that way not because Oracle was evil
or 
> terrible, but the fact remains that the JCP is not an independent
> body, and so I think something new is required.

The JCP and JCP process are not going away or being
disbanded.  They will still exist and function in the same capacity
as they do today.  There are Java SE and even Java EE JSRs (Configuration
JSR, for example) that are still using the JCP processes.

The question is whether EE4J will us the JCP process.
 In that regard, then I would tend to agree with Martijn's answer.
 The current thinking is that some other yet-to-be-determined process
will be used for ratifying EE4J specifications.  

>  
>  6. Are the spec leads for EE 8 going to
lead the specs for EE4J?
> 
> Up to the community to decide but I think you've already seen RedHat
> and IBM offer to take lead on several JSRs and Oracle (not binding
> them to anything here) also indicated that they would take 
> leadership for other specs if asked to do so.
>  
>  5. Will work continue in the JCP on EE
9 while EE4J gets going or 
> is everything grinding to a halt?
> 
> I think that will stop, would need an Oracle answer on that one though.
>  
> My thoughts, I’ve been trying to educate JUG
members and my employer
> on the JCP. If someone had a complaint or suggestion I would tell
> them to submit feedback to the relevant spec. Should JUGs continue
> to pursue adopt-a-jsr? I would rather see a gradual evolution than
a
> revamp of the process.
> 
> I'll be encouraging all Adopt a JSR folks to simply move to the EE4J
> community and engage in a traditional open source project manner. 
> The final barriers have effectively been removed, so there won't be
> a need for a separate programme, just that folks contribute at Eclipse
:-).
>  
> Regarding the charter, instead of a “nimble”
process, I would rather
> see goals - one release a year with a point release or consistent
> and predictable updates etc.. I wouldn’t start out a charter by 
> pointing out flaws but that is just my opinion.
> 
> That's good feedback, I think another version of the charter is 
> coming out in the next few days, so *please* do comment on that 
> aspect again there.
>  
> BTW: I did see the blog entry "On Naming,
or Why EE4J Does Not Suck”
> but I have to comment that as a JUG leader, the EE4J name definitely
> stirred passions. The last time I received negative feedback was 
> when Oracle bought Sun. I received text messages and emails 
> complaining before I saw the announcement.
> 
> Naming is hard, naming by committee is impossible.  That said
EE4J 
> is the Eclipse Project name and will not be the actual branding /
> certification name, which is something the community can come up 
> with (after much bikeshedding one suspects ;p).
> 
> Thanks Ryan they were thought provoking Q's!
>  
> 
>  -Ryan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community

> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or 
> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?
> u=https-3A__dev.eclipse.org_mailman_listinfo_ee4j-2Dcommunity&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg&r=R9dtOS3afYnRUmu_zogmh0VnVYl2tse_V7QBUA9yr_4&m=HubZd9CtjAjGXMjxqtcPpp4VFtYE08eif4GCAJdFlfQ&s=3iVN-
> u4RRo1Zl-pHVVyWaVQdFbI-hba2afGynZ5hs6s&e=