| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Jakarta NoSQL |
So, I guess it depends on their intent.
One question that comes to mind is, where should a specification team post and distribute for comment, their work in progress -- as they reach their various internal milestones.
In my perspective -- the Specifications site ought to show what has been approved in the various ballots since the pages also include representation that the members have voted on the content.
The model we used in the past was for Specification teams to work
from their project sites, until they needed a ballot/approval
action. So, I'd have recommended against trying to push an update
to the Spec. pages like this. If there isn't a link to their
working site, perhaps there should be. If they need amplification
to get eye-balls on their work, we ought to be able to provide
that separately.
If they are working toward a ballot and this material is what would be included in that ballot, I'd encourage the PR, but if it's just to publicize and get commentary on a working draft that isn't in some way voted on by the members, I'd recommend it belongs elsewhere.
-- Ed
Hi,
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Jakarta NoSQL spec project has submitted a PR with updates to their specification page.
What is our process for this?They are not requesting a progress review at this point. Should they?The PR does contain references to "Beta 3" versions of their artifacts (doc, API, TCK). Since it is not a formal release, I guess that is ok. Or should they have engaged in a release review for this?
Ivar
--
Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation
Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
_______________________________________________ jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Nxr-exy-9hs3FVifYlBFKukIeFBQcBzQweV9uZAsCu1LKiRkcou8PpJm32HfXGQ$