Maybe that's the reason to define a Platform, as the place that the
overall architecture is created and managed.
If a Working Group had 3 Profiles and no Platform I suppose it would
be up to the Working Group to decide how the 3 Profile Specification
Projects should manage the architecture of all the projects under
that Working Group, e.g., by ensuring great overlap in the
membership of those 3 Profile Specification Projects.
Wayne Beaton wrote on 10/10/18 10:39
AM:
More generally, this means that in the general
sense, nobody has overall responsibility for the architecture of
the full suite of specifications under a specific Working
Group's umbrella; rather it is the Profile projects, which have
the responsibility to present a coherent overall architecture
are responsible for influencing the projects that they leverage.
Wayne
On
2018-10-04 9:48 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
I agree, Bill, that we haven't
defined who owns the overall architecture of Jakarta
EE. I think we determined yesterday that the Spec
Committee does not own this architecture. From past
conversations, I think we have also agreed that it's
not the EE4J PMC. So, is it the Platform project?
This might be the logical choice, but we haven't
defined that role yet. We need to put this
definition and anointing on our list of things to
do...
