Notes from email
All nominees must be sponsored by a current active Java Champion. <- sent to email@example.com
1. We thus need a field on the first page for the Java Champion sponsor. If they don't have one, they must find one. They can leave that field blank, in which case we might still consider him, but we will be more circumspect.
2. We also need fields that they can fill in for the nomination, with links to their achievements and biography, based on the "Who is a good candidate?"
Here are some of the guidelines for selecting new champions (one or several principles may apply):
Java Champions are leaders; ideal candidates are leading Java-related projects, JUG communities, and so on.
Java Champions are technical luminaries; the candidate should be a Java engineer or architect who is relatively senior and has lots of experience.
Java Champions are independent-minded and credible; Java Champions may author or publish content that is pro, neutral, or negative toward Oracle.
Java Champions are involved with some really cool applications of Java Technology or some humanitarian or educational effort. The application must be openly available to the Java community (vs. a company-proprietary or government-classified project).
Java Champions are able to evangelize or influence other developers through their own professional activities (via consulting, teaching, writing, speaking, etc.)
3. Once they are submitted, we need to send a confirmation email to the person who submitted it. The program should then select 5 random JCs on the selection committee list (see mail-list champion-selection-committee) and should allow them to vote: Yes, No, Undecided. There should also be a comment field. The program should prompt the selection committee if no vote comes in within a week. Also, if someone is Undecided, then perhaps the program can appoint another random person to evaluate the submission. In order to keep everything in the open, the program should send emails to the champion-selection-committee list whenever an event occurs, for example:
3.1 New candidate submitted
3.2 Kirk voted YES
3.3 Mattias voted NO - "This guy came to JFokus and spoke on atomics but he had absolutely no clue and was an embarrassment to my conference."
3.4 Heinz voted YES - "He has written the JCoolStuffWidgets framework that is in use with a lot of my clients."
Obviously we could discuss the various concerns on the mailing list if it is not a slam-dunk submission and we should be allowed to change our vote. Once we have consensus, meaning that we don't have any NOs, but we can have Undecideds, then the system can send an email to the person inviting them to accept the nomination.
If no consensus is reached then the nomination is set aside for at least 3 months. A re-evaluation will be made if anyone wishes to re-open the case after the 3 month period. If no consensus is reached in the re-evaluation then the nomination is shelved. A new committee will be formed for each nomination.
All documented here: