Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] Standardise MicroProfile Compatibility process
Hi Emily,

The way MP is set up a single project, I see your point where it's at least impractical to get 50% of the specification committers to vote. So your suggestion of two committers should suffice IMHO, unless I'm overlooking something.

Again, the way MP is setup, every committer is effectively a specification committer for every specification. So I would suggest that we leave the "specification" distinction out, and just refer to committers.

Edwin 

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 18:20, Emily Jiang via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Further to my previous email, I have addressed some feedback from Nathan and Martin (Thank you Nathan, Martin!). As you may know, this proposed process is a direct clone from Jakarta EE with some minor updates ( put together by David). After re-reading the whole process, I have one more question:

I feel the following is not practical for MicroPorfile community:

Approval that the TCK requirements have been met is a prerequisite for getting the corresponding runtime listed as a complible implementation of a particular MicroProfile platform release.
The required approval processes is:

  • Approval by lazy consensus after a period of two weeks (14 days) or

  • Approval by a majority vote of the specification contributors as soon as
    it happens.

    • The sum of the +1/-1 votes must be greater than 50% of the
      specification committers.

The 2nd rule about approval by a majority vote. Since MP has no boundary for specs, we have a large number of committers. It is not practical to require at least half of them to review the CCR. I would like to suggest the following:

Approval that the TCK requirements have been met is a prerequisite for getting

  • Approval by lazy consensus after a period of two weeks (14 days) or

  • Approval by at least two of the specification committers as soon as
    it happens.

    • The specification committers must not work for the same company where the certification requester is associated with.
I put a comment on the PR. You can either comment on this mailinglist or comment on the issue. Let's aim to get the process finalised at next week's MP call.

Thanks
Emily

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:12 AM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As promised at last week's MicroProfile technical meeting, I took the TCK process PR from David and made more updates to reflect the new process of not having a Compatibility Trademark programme.

Please review and provide feedback this week. I am hoping we can finalise the process next week so that the implementations for MicroProfile 4.1 and 5.0 can go through this process.

--
Thanks
Emily



--
Thanks
Emily

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg

Back to the top