| [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Plan Review |
For tomorrow's Specification Committee meeting can I ask the fellow members to review this description of the Plan Review phase from Wayne's blog. - https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/eclipse-foundation-specification-process-step-by-step/ My reading of "It must, for example, take into consideration overarching plans of the PMC or associated working group." means it is fine and natural for the Steering Committee to ask for a high level roadmap, but does not eliminate the need for a Plan Review and a two week pulblic voting period and for this to be the start of all specification cycles. I'm going to channel my inner Bill Shannon and say we either need to follow the rules or change the rules. So we either need to decide: - exactly what kind of Plan Review we will require for Jakarta EE 9 specifications, including the Platform Specification - exactly when and how a specification project can skip a Plan Review -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Release Planning: The project team assembles the plan for each release cycle.  Again, note that the proposal and creation review serve as the plan and plan review for the first release. The plan must be in-scope (i.e. all new work must fall within the bounds defined by the specification project’s scope) and must be developed in consideration of the concerns of stakeholders. It must, for example, take into consideration overarching plans of the PMC or associated working group. It’s worth noting that the concerns of the project team must also be taken into consideration when creating an overarching plan. We’re all in this together. The plan is delivered to the specification committee via a plan review. The specification committee must vote to approve: a two-thirds majority of positive votes are required to succeed. How the individual members of the specification committee decide to vote varies; but at a minimum, by voting yes, members affirm that they believe that the planned work fits within the project’s scope and that sufficient consultation with the community and stakeholders has occurred. All reviews, including plan reviews, run for a minimum of one week. They start with the delivery of review materials, and end with the conclusion of the voting period. For a plan review, materials include the plan itself along with a concise description (executive summary) of the plan. For progress and release reviews (which will be discussed shortly), the review materials include a milestone or release candidate build of the project content. All reviews are run in the open. In addition to the approvals that are required, reviews offer an opportunity for the community and adopters to make their concerns known. As the entire process is run in the open, reviews should be considered as a final opportunity to express concern: parties who have a stake or interest in a specification process should engage early and often via project-specific open channels. In the event that a review fails, the project team must regroup, incorporate feedback, and re-engage in a new review. The EFSP makes no requirement regarding the timing of re-engagement. |