jsr348
  1. jsr348
  2. JSR348-13

1.4 - EG/TCK Members/Observers mailing list must be consolidated

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Component/s: Process Doc
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Process Doc Section 1.4:

      >> All discussion of spec, implementation, or TCK results should be permissible and encouraged in public forums.

      >> EG/TCK mailing lists should be no different than a typical OSS dev mailing list. Open for anyone to join and post. Separating observers lists is not transparent and is not productive or conducive to promoting community feedback. It only serves to limit participation, which is not something we should seek.

        Activity

        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        See section 0.0.1 Mailing Lists beginning on line 186 of the Process Document draft.

        This specifies that all substantive business must be carried out in public, but also states that trivial business ("when shall we meet?" for example) may be discussed privately.

        This seems perfectly appropriate. We cannot prohibit private conversations between EG members!

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - See section 0.0.1 Mailing Lists beginning on line 186 of the Process Document draft. This specifies that all substantive business must be carried out in public, but also states that trivial business ("when shall we meet?" for example) may be discussed privately. This seems perfectly appropriate. We cannot prohibit private conversations between EG members!
        Hide
        lincolnbaxter added a comment -

        These ideas were drafted by an independent group reviewing the Early Draft from June 21, 2011 - apologies for out-of-date issues.

        Show
        lincolnbaxter added a comment - These ideas were drafted by an independent group reviewing the Early Draft from June 21, 2011 - apologies for out-of-date issues.
        Hide
        lincolnbaxter added a comment -

        Ah, I think I was probably unclear when I submitted this. Sorry.

        The suggestion here was to prohibit use of a read-only mailing list for the general public, thus ensuring that all community feedback be permitted to go directly to the expert-group mailing list. We see little need to separate concerns here into "members" and "observers," since even though we may not like to admit it, every person with an idea is someone the expert group should be representing. Their thoughts should be just as valid as anyone else's, and we think they should be allowed to post to the EG list.

        Show
        lincolnbaxter added a comment - Ah, I think I was probably unclear when I submitted this. Sorry. The suggestion here was to prohibit use of a read-only mailing list for the general public, thus ensuring that all community feedback be permitted to go directly to the expert-group mailing list. We see little need to separate concerns here into "members" and "observers," since even though we may not like to admit it, every person with an idea is someone the expert group should be representing. Their thoughts should be just as valid as anyone else's, and we think they should be allowed to post to the EG list.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Like it or not, there is a difference between membership in the Expert Group (members have signed on, agreed to contribute IP, committed to working with the Spec Lead) and "observers."

        As I said earlier, we don't specify in detail how Expert Groups should structure their aliases, but I strongly believe that the distinction between experts and observers that we've implemented for JSR 348 is a useful one. (So long as all experts mail is copied to observers.)

        This is the model that the Java EE EGs have been following, and it works well for them.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Like it or not, there is a difference between membership in the Expert Group (members have signed on, agreed to contribute IP, committed to working with the Spec Lead) and "observers." As I said earlier, we don't specify in detail how Expert Groups should structure their aliases, but I strongly believe that the distinction between experts and observers that we've implemented for JSR 348 is a useful one. (So long as all experts mail is copied to observers.) This is the model that the Java EE EGs have been following, and it works well for them.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Closing this, since we've addressed the submitter's concern (though perhaps not to his satisfaction.)

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Closing this, since we've addressed the submitter's concern (though perhaps not to his satisfaction.)

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            lincolnbaxter
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: