jcpnext4
  1. jcpnext4
  2. JCPNEXT4-18

PMO should not be involved in Early Draft Review

    Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Given the new transparency requirements, there seems to be little gained by involving
      the PMO in Early Draft Review. It would be easier for the EG to publish its draft
      specs on its project web site for review, whenever it wants, as often as it wants,
      for as long as it wants, without having to inform the PMO.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          heathervc added a comment -

          We will discuss this issue at the May 2014 F2F Meeting in London as part of JSR 364.

          Show
          heathervc added a comment - We will discuss this issue at the May 2014 F2F Meeting in London as part of JSR 364.
          Hide
          keilw added a comment -

          Will add more during the F2F, but it seems, in the absense of a unified infrastructure to automate this (a'la Hudson/Jenkins) e.g. at Java.net, the PMO's manual effort is hard to reduce or replace.

          Show
          keilw added a comment - Will add more during the F2F, but it seems, in the absense of a unified infrastructure to automate this (a'la Hudson/Jenkins) e.g. at Java.net, the PMO's manual effort is hard to reduce or replace.
          Hide
          Bill Shannon added a comment -

          I don't understand what automation you have in mind.

          Why isn't it sufficient for the PMO to do nothing?

          Why isn't it sufficient for the EG to publish drafts however it wants?

          Show
          Bill Shannon added a comment - I don't understand what automation you have in mind. Why isn't it sufficient for the PMO to do nothing ? Why isn't it sufficient for the EG to publish drafts however it wants?
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          I also have no idea what "automation" has to do with this but the EC has discussed this suggestion in some detail. We agreed that even though we want to encourage Expert Groups to "publish early and often" there nevertheless is significant value in having formal review processes.

          Consequently, we decided to make no changes in this area.

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - I also have no idea what "automation" has to do with this but the EC has discussed this suggestion in some detail. We agreed that even though we want to encourage Expert Groups to "publish early and often" there nevertheless is significant value in having formal review processes. Consequently, we decided to make no changes in this area.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          See earlier comment

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - See earlier comment

            People

            • Assignee:
              heathervc
              Reporter:
              Bill Shannon
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: