| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Suggested JakartaEESpecifictaionNaming standard |
Crazy Bob as an Individual may have vanished, but there’s still Pivotal (formerly Spring Source) as the other Maintenance Lead. If neither of them can be reached or the Maintenance Lead discontinues their work then 3.2.2.5 Relinquishing ownershipIf a Spec Lead or Maintenance Lead decides to discontinue his or her work at any time (including discontinuing maintenance activities or declining to take on the role of Spec Lead during a significant revision initiated by a new JSR) they should, with the assistance of the PMO, make a reasonable effort to locate another Member who is willing to take on the task. If a replacement is identified the PMO must initiate a Transfer Ballot within 30 days to enable EC members to approve the transfer of responsibilities. If the ballot succeeds, the new lead must assume his or her responsibilities within 30 days. In order to facilitate such a transfer of responsibilities the outgoing lead is strongly encouraged to transfer all its Intellectual Property rights in the existing JSR to the new lead. If no replacement can be found, or if the Transfer Ballot fails, then the PMO shall declare the Specification to be Dormant and no further work can be carried out. No further Transfer Ballots will be initiated by the PMO unless a Member volunteers to take on the lead role, in which case the PMO will again have 30 days to initiate a Transfer Ballot. (see https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_10#3.2.2) would be the closest I could think of. And we considered executing it before Credit Suisse (former Maintenance Lead) voluntarily agreed in a Transfer Ballot of JSR 354 to Anatole/Trivadis, Otavio and myself. While JSR 330 has never migrated from https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_7 the prior version of the same terms already existed in https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_7#4 under 4.1.2 RELINQUISHING OWNERSHIPAlthough indirectly this JSR has even been part of a Platform (Java EE) so the whole idea of long term commitment by the Maintenance Lead(s) should be even more critical here and thus the PMO and EC should have means even if the ML was totally unresponsive. JCP 2.10+ gave even a little more freedom by saying: No further Transfer Ballots will be initiated by the PMO unless a Member volunteers to take on the lead role, in which case the PMO will again have 30 days to initiate a Transfer Ballot. “Member” can only be a member of the former EG but I leave that to those who are both in this group, the JCP EC and former JSR 330 EG (as mentioned a very large overlap;-) From: Bill Shannon Since the JSR is complete, there is no Expert Group and no Spec Lead, only a Maintenance Lead, so I don't think this applies. Scott Stark wrote on 4/20/19 7:15 AM: > If there is no response to an open letter or ECF lead contact, there > is a procedure to remove an unresponsive spec lead, > https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_11: > > --- > 3.2.2.4 Unresponsive or inactive Spec Lead > > There may be rare instances when members of the Expert Group feel that > the Spec Lead is not acting in ways that advance the work of the > Expert Group and is being unresponsive or inactive. The EG is expected > to make a reasonable effort to resolve any such issues in a timely > manner. However, if the situation cannot be resolved these concerns > should be brought to the attention of the EC as quickly as possible so > they may be proactively addressed and resolved. > > If the problems cannot be resolved informally, any three members of > the EG may request the EC to replace the Spec Lead. All such requests > must clearly state the cause of the concern and provide all necessary > evidence. If the EC agrees that there is cause, it may ask the PMO to > replace the Spec Lead. If the Spec Lead is a Member Representative the > PMO shall ask the Member to replace the Spec Lead. If the Member > declines to do so the PMO shall seek an alternative Spec Lead, in > which case the EC must conduct a Transfer Ballot as specified in > section of this document. If no Spec Lead replacement can be found, > the EC shall initiate a JSR Renewal Ballot to determine whether the > JSR should be shut down. > --- > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:35 AM Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Given that IBM, Red Hat, Oracle, Google and Spring Source (now Pivotal) who also Held one of the Spec Lead positions were all in the EG, it should not be too difficult to get such answer? ;-) >> >> >> >> Pivotal no longer seems a JCP member, looks like it did not renew its membership, but it is a Solution member of Eclipse Foundation, so it can’t be hard for Eclipse to reach out to someone who has a say there, e.g. Jürgen Höller or others. >> >> >> >> Werner >> >> >> >> From: Scott Stark >> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 19:29 >> To: Jakarta specification committee >> Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Suggested Jakarta EESpecifictaionNaming standard >> >> >> >> I would suggest that the Eclipse Foundation write an open letter to >> >> the past spec leads asking for collaboration on moving the IP over to >> >> the Jakarta effort. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 |