Mike Milinkovich wrote on 05/22/18 12:47 PM:
On 2018-05-22 8:24 AM, Richard
Monson-Haefel wrote:
Also, can a Particpant have multiple
representatives on a a Specification Project?
I don't think that there should be an explicit rule that prohibits
more than one committer per Participant company. But happy to have
someone argue otherwise.
If decisions are ever made by voting (and I don't know what the EDP
says about that), can Oracle have enough committers to out-vote
everyone else? That might make sense if all those committers are
actively working on a code project, but is that what you want for
specifications? Would you have different voting rules?
There is a different issue with the above. When you say "claim
compliance in self certification", what are they claiming
compliance to? If they don't have some sort of trademark license,
I don't see how they can claim they're compatible with Jakarta EE.
If they pass the TCK, and especially if they use the distinguished
TCK binary, how are they not compatible with the specification?
What about specifications defined outside
the Eclipse Foundation? Wasn’t the CDI, MVP, and
BeanValidation specifications defined outside the JCP?
It should be possible to define a specifications outside
the EF which can be accepted as the standard within
Jakarta EE.
Honestly, this use case is driving me crazy trying to figure out
how it can be done.
Having the Specification done elsewhere was a workaround for the
Spec Lead problem in the JCP. And I don't think it works without a
Spec Lead which accumulates the IP rights. Given the open IP flows
under this new process, I cannot for the life of me figure out how
it is even possible "...to define a specifications outside the EF
which can be accepted as the standard within Jakarta EE...".
Seriously. Think about it. I don't see how this works without an
all powerful Spec Lead. Maybe someone smarter than I has a
suggestion?
I agree.
And I thought we expected the above specifications to move to the
Jakarta EE process?
|
