| [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Plan vs. Progress ballot? |
Moving this over to the Committee list --
Refreshing myself about the EFSP
state diagram -- shouldn't we be requesting "Progress
Reviews" from Specification Project teams that have not held
a ballot within the past twelve months (or possibly if they have
revised some previously agreed milestone schedule)? (I'd suggest
Config might be in the twelve months since last ballot category.
I'm not certain RPC is, but we can certainly ask for a Progress
review if we like)
If we are going to adopt a process that inserts a Plan Review, we probably should work out and codify that process. Currently, neither ESFP 1.2 or 1.3 show such a sequence.
I'd be perfectly happy codifying this any way we think is appropriate. We could
Probably there are other approaches as well.
I think the goal should be, clarity about what and also when.
Perhaps we want to include other things. The more detail we can
provide, the easier it should be for community members to create
new successful proposals.
-- Ed
Thanks, David!Yes, I agree. The RPC description is what we should strive for.
Regarding Config, I have twice brought it up in their weekly calls that they should prepare materials and request a plan review. But so far, I haven't gotten anywhere. It would be great is other specification committee members also nudged them a little. They have decided to pause the calls until September due to summer vacations, but then we should definitely get a plan from the project.
For RPC, I don't think there has been any activity at all on the mailing list. So that is more a PMC issue to reach out and see if they are planning on getting something going. I will do that, and let's see what the response is.
Ivar
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:45 PM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________+1 (Tomitribe) with the explicit note we will vote -1 on any release reviews if we skip a plan review and we think the project description should have more detail.
Note, we have not filed a plan review for Config (14 months old) or RPC (6 months old).
Here is example of a very good project description / creation review:
It would be ideal if we continued that level of quality.
-David
On Jul 20, 2022, at 12:05 AM, Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi David,
Note that this is the creation review for a specification project. They will be required to file a plan review for a specification (version) later.Stating the Java version on the main page of a spec project doesn't make sense, since there will be different versions for different versions of the specifications.The items you suggest should be provided for a spec version page, e.g /data/1.0
For now, I think we should let the project gather, discuss, and then decide how to proceed. A scope statement is enough at this stage.
Ivar
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:26 AM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________Since there typically is no plan review for new projects, can we get more than two sentences for the description?
Shoot for 2 paragraphs. Some ideas that could provide more detail:- what specifications you intend to build upon/leverage,- anticipated java version- what goals might you approach early and what you think might be out of scope for now or forever- who would be ideal implementors (give your best sales pitch)
There's been good discussion, so it should be easy.
--David Blevins
On Jul 19, 2022, at 3:29 AM, Emily Jiang via jakarta.ee-spec <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings Jakarta EE Specification Committee._______________________________________________
I need your vote to approve and ratify the creation of the Jakarta Data project.
The JESP/EFSP requires a successful ballot of the Specification Committee in order to finalize the project creation (as defined in the EFSP).
The relevant materials are available here:
Per the process, this will be a seven-day ballot, ending on July 26, 2022, that requires a Super-majority positive vote of the Specification Committee members (note that there is no veto). Community input is welcome, but only votes cast by Specification Committee Representatives will be counted.
The Specification Committee is composed of representatives of the Jakarta EE Working Group Member Companies (Fujitsu, IBM, Oracle, Payara, Tomitribe, Primeton, and Shandong Cvicse Middleware Co.), along with individuals who represent the EE4J PMC, Participant Members, and Committer Members.
Specification Committee representatives, your vote is hereby requested. Please respond with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated.
--
Thanks
Emily
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
--
_______________________________________________Ivar GrimstadJakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
--
Ivar Grimstad
Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
_______________________________________________ jakarta.ee-spec mailing list jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MZGdJmqiS7jtG0txgtLZANCaR7JxQnjeZrlrIUIXdnn5HkOh4J2_MTadWUKhQ531musN-EMSrubaAlPONr21gnQeCBmAHFa0ng$