[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: Moving Jakarta CDI and Jakarta Config forward
|
Along with the need for a creation review, I'll note there is not
yet a CDI 4 proposal for EE 10 or any other Jakarta EE release for
that matter. -- I believe the ballot could also include the
plan/proposal for work that will be focused on Jakarta EE 10. In
this respect, I believe the creation review can serve both
purposes.
If we don't wish to include the plan details in the project
re-start creation review, we could hold a separate ballot to cover
the plan/proposal for EE 10 work. I guess that would then be a
"Progress Review" or, we could hold a "plan" review. (I'm looking
at this
diagram to suggest what ought to be done). Though I'd be
happy with the CDI 4 plan included in the project restart creation
ballot.
Regardless, I recommend we also get the work that is going on now
-- CDI Lite, etc. on record.
Thanks,
-- Ed
PS Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous calling it CDI 4. Of
course, you can set the version as necessary.
On 9/10/2021 11:20 AM, Wayne Beaton
wrote:
Greetings Specification Committee.
I have drafted a
review record for the Jakarta CDI
re-creation. I believe that the description captures the
essence of what we need to accomplish.
Since we are -- at least according to the process --
creating a new project, I need you to initiate and execute a
ballot to approve the creation. Per the Jakarta EE
Specification Process, such a ballot requires two weeks.
I believe (and the CDI project representatives on the
committee can correct me if I'm wrong) that the only
difference between the current and future versions of the
project is the selection of patent license. To be as clear as
possible, the re-created Jakarta CDI project will use the
Implementation Patent License.
If further discussion is required before you are ready to
initiate the ballot, please have that discussion and start the
ballot when you are ready to do so (for reference/template,
your most recent call for a creation ballot is
here).
I will initiate the process of getting PMC approval and
committer agreement to continue on the re-created project
after you've resolved your concerns and have initiated the
ballot.
As we discussed on the call earlier this week, the next
release of Jakarta CDI following our success here requires a
release review even if it is a service release. The EFSP
regards a creation review as a suitable replacement for a plan
review. I defer to the specification committee's wisdom
regarding whether or not an additional plan review is
required.
I recommend that you capture any concerns that you have
regarding this review, follow up activity, or any other aspect
of this endeavor as comments/threads on the
tracking issue where they can be
discussed and resolved in an open and transparent manner.
Wayne
Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee.
I'm going to join your call today to discuss these
topics. In preparation for this, here is some background.
Regarding Jakarta CDI...
We cannot change the patent license on an existing
specification project. We can, however, create a new
specification project that uses existing content.
Unfortunately, standing up a new project requires some
investment in time. So, to avoid as much churn as possible
(while following the EDP, the EFSP, and IP Policy), the
EMO intends to leverage the ability to combine reviews.
Specifically, we intend to combine a termination and
creation review. We will, through this review, terminate
the existing Jakarta CDI specification project and then
recreate it in place (but skip the part where we archive
and then unarchive the project resources, retire and then
reappoint committers, etc). I've described the process
that we're going to follow with some detail on the
tracking issue.
Regarding Jakarta Config...
You may recall that the patent license was changed
midway through the creation review ballot for the Jakarta
Config specification project. The process lumbered on
anyway and we wound up creating the project before we
detected the error. AFAIK, there has been no activity on
the project (i.e., no intellectual property has been
committed) which leaves us in a position to fix the error.
I believe that the project team wants to move the
project forward with the Compatible Patent License. If
this is still the case, then -- given that the steering
committee has selected the Implementation Patent License
as the default patent license -- approval from the
steering committee for the exception is required. With the
matter of the selection of the patent license for the
project settled, we will need to re-run the creation
review ballot. With ballot approval, the project will be
good-to-go.
So... if the specification committee has strong
opinions regarding the project's selection of patent
license, then we will need you to engage with the project
team to sort out the choice. Otherwise, the EMO will
engage with the project team to validate that they intend
to move forward with the Compatible Patent License. If an
exception from the steering committee is required, the EMO
will ask the specification committee to make that
petition.
When the selection of patent license is settled the EMO
will task the specification committee with initiating the
required ballot.
Thanks,
Wayne
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation
--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation
_______________________________________________
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__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!cAopFxTV7jgsVwp82N4twVmZlqSvMeqiKAbWj2jeDfZNHx5xXBLVsVvtPNJIrD0$