I'd like to get an assurance from each MicroProfile participant that
the JESP would be suitable for MicroProfile, and if not exactly what
changes would be required to make it so.
Wayne Beaton wrote on 2/1/19 1:18 PM:
In preparation for a discussion that hope will be
on the agenda for our next call, can everybody please review the
cited documents?
What is missing from the Specializing the
EFSP (AKA "Knobs and Dials") document? Please add
comments or suggest edits for our discussion.
The Example Jakarta EE
Specification Process is basically the document that
Mike assembled late last year. My first question is: do you
regard this as the right level? Must the JESP be documented
in some sort of formal prose, or is a bullet list in this
form sufficient to define the process itself.
I have to regularly remind myself that the specification
process document, and the JESP by extension are intended to be
concise documents that we need to augment with more practical
"how to" documentation.
The EDP, for example, specifies that release reviews must run
for one week. It does not specify that we schedule them to
conclude on the first and third Wednesday of every month, that
release and review metadata is entered into the PMI, or that
we use Bugzilla record to track the progress of a review. All
of this is specified in the Eclipse Project Handbook. I always
give pointers to the handbook; I rarely point people to the
EDP (and usually only in response to a "why" question).
Wayne
For tomorrow's call, the discussion that I'd
like to continue regarding the specification process is
captured in the documents cited in the agenda.
Wayne
Tanja Obradovic wrote on 1/29/19
4:36 PM:
Hi Bill, All,
please see my responses inline.
Hope this helps.
Tanja
On
2019-01-29 5:29 p.m., Bill Shannon wrote:
I find it very weird that the
agenda and all past minutes are just one long
document. Am I the only one?
At least shouldn't the approved minutes be split off
and published separately, and somehow made available
to the public?
I would argue you see all past minutes... The
intention, and ideal situation, is to only have past
meeting minuets from one previous meeting and the
Agenda fro the upcoming call. Since you see other,
older meeting minutes from early January, that were
previously approved, that just means I did not
get a chance to publish them yet. Let me assure you
it is on my to-do-list. As soon as they get
published they will be removed from the document,
and it will become a short document again.
Ok, if you're just behind, at least we agree on the
intent! :-)
And is there any point in having the minutes include
items that were not discussed in the meeting? I
suppose I could see having a list of agenda items
for the meeting, some of which were not covered, but
the minutes have much more detail than that.
I prefer to keep all items that still need discussion
with relevant relevant details for the context and
future discussions. I find often, after a revisiting
items that were parked for a while, we are not sure
what was discussed last. If repetition bothers you and
others, I am open not to publish what was not
discussed in the meeting minutes, but would still
prefer to keep them on the long version of the Agenda
until the item is closed.
I have no problem keeping them in the agenda, assuming
they're actually on the agenda, and not just
being used as a parking lot for issues that should be
discussed someday.
For tomorrow's meeting, is there a presentation on
the TCK process or the Jakarta EE spec process?
Who's giving it? Is there a proposal we should be
reviewing? Or is this just an opportunity for open
discussion? (I'm trying to understand the path to
closing on these items.)
I do not have any presentations lined up for
tomorrow, however we will continue conversation on
TCK, from Red Hat and discuss how to proceed next,
as indicated at the end of the last call. David
Blevins is taking the lead here and will be helping
with this.
David, it would be helpful to have a written proposal
from you, or a written list of issues to discuss or
questions to answer.
For Jakarta EE spec process, as before Wayne Beaton
is leading and he will provide an update on the
progress and next steps. The documents that can be
reviewed are in the Agenda "long document", and
everyone should feel free to review them.
I feel free to review many things, but I only take the
time to actually review things that require
review by some specific date. :-)
Wayne, it would also help to have something written from
you.
Thanks.
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
