Although I’m not a strategic member and those Sound „More Equal“ I helped at least 2 MicroProfile features, for Metrics I am even mentioned in the Specification. Some of the MicroProfile discussions on the list also show, that it suffers from a bit of a “Scope Creep” and some users would prefer a categorization into “core” and other topics or profiles like “Reactive”, “Failover”, etc. Was there an actual profile suggestion or is this mainly for adding new profiles in general? 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. 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. 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).
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. 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 |
|
