Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for approval: Spec CommitteeMeeti

[Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>]

Btw, just noticed, while it isn’t on different sides of the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean this time, EclipseCon Europe 2019 has an exact overlap with ApacheCon Europe 2019 in Berlin ;-)

 

Not everyone has responsibilities in both communities, but some especially those behind Apache projects like TomEE may have to use the ICE (train, not the US organization that puts Children into Cages) or fly between Stuttgart and Berlin. It seems doable, even if you had 2 talks on the same day in different cities.

 

Regards,

Werner

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Bill Shannon
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 19:23
To: Jakarta specification committee; Tanja Obradovic
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for approval: Spec CommitteeMeeting Minutes April 10th, 2019

 

Tanja Obradovic wrote on 4/15/19 9:20 AM:

                 i.Per JESP v1.0: Specification Projects must engage in at least one Progress or Release Review  per year while in active development

I believe this is incorrect.  The EFSP says:

For both Major and Minor Releases the Specification Team must engage in at least one successful Progress Review and a successful Release Review.

That's "and", not "or".

                 i.We may also consider Combining reviews, per EDP

It's not clear to me that combining a Progress Review and a Release Review is what the EDP intended, or that the EFSP intended to allow combining them into a single review, but it seems clear that the EFSP requires both, not a single review.  If the intent is that both reviews would occur, but would occur (effectively) in parallel, we should make that clear.  If the intent is that a Progress Review is not required if the Release Review occurs less than a year after the Creation Review, we should update the EFSP.

I'm not opposed to any of these, I just want to make it clear what's allowed and what's intended.