|
A suggestion: the creation of a new
Profile Specification is a one time thing, and there is nothing
there that says that the Profile Specification need to be approved
when it's completed. I agree with Wayne that the motivation for
the super-majority vote was to ensure that there was a consensus
that the new profile is deserving of access to the brand. So if
there is concern from the Eclipse MicroProfile community that
their profile would be rejected by the Spec Committee, why don't
we spimply ask the Spec Committee to pre-approve the new profile?
Procedurally this could be done by proposing a new Profile
Specification Project.
Thoughts?
On 2019-02-06 3:39 p.m., Wayne Beaton
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this
has entirely to do with access to branding.
Specifically, only profiles (and platforms by extension)
get access to the branding.
I believe that we can reasonably assert that designating
profiles and platforms is a strategic matter.
So the question put forth to the strategic members who have
no active interest in a potential profile is, basically,
whether or not a potential profile is a strategic asset. I
suspect that 11 out of 11 strategic members regard Eclipse
MicroProfile as such.
FWIW, I suspect that very few specifications (and--as the
portfolio increases in size--profiles) are going to get any
sort of dedicated attention or active involvement from more
than four strategic members.
Wayne
There are a few items that I need to fully
map onto the current MP process, but the one thing that
stands out is the following requirement:
A Super-majority,
including a Super-majority of Strategic
Members, is required to approve a Profile
Specification. A Specification Committee may, at
its discretion, elect to label one or more
Profiles as a “Platform”.
The
problem here is that 7 out of 11 members listed here
do not actively participate in the MP specs.
https://www.eclipse.org/membership/exploreMembership.php
as the use of the EFSP grows, this would seem to be a
growing problem as there is no guarantee that strategic
members have interest in, or alignment with projects.
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.
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
