jsr348
  1. jsr348
  2. JSR348-34

Permit Spec Leads to submit no quarterly certification report if nothing has changed

    Details

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

      Description

      Bill Shannon said, in comments on the draft document:

      "I still don't think there should be a requirement to submit
      anything if nothing has changed. who's going to detect failure to
      submit? the PMO? if the PMO sends the quarterly "why haven't you
      submitted anything" message, we'll just use that as the reminder to
      say "nothing has changed". I don't want to be required to proactively
      say "nothing has changed" every quarter. who's going to sign up for
      doing that forever for JSRs that are no longer being used?"

      I responded:

      I still think that starting out with the assumption that people need
      not report unless they have something to say will lead to people
      ignoring this requirement. The PMO can use its judgment about who to
      remind, but I really do want the "there's nothing to report this quarter"
      messages so we don't have to guess whether or not we're being ignored.

        Activity

        pcurran created issue -
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -
        Show
        pcurran added a comment - See also http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR348-32
        Hide
        Bill Shannon added a comment -

        I say with complete confidence that Spec Leads will not reliably provide this
        information quarterly.

        Show
        Bill Shannon added a comment - I say with complete confidence that Spec Leads will not reliably provide this information quarterly.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment - - edited

        I understand that (some) Spec Leads won't want to do this. Some Spec Leads don't want to do most of what the JCP requires them to do (subject their Specs to EC votes, for example.) That doesn't necessarily mean that the requirements are a bad thing, or that we should turn a blind eye to violations of the process, or that the requirements should be watered down or dropped.

        Bring it on!

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - - edited I understand that (some) Spec Leads won't want to do this. Some Spec Leads don't want to do most of what the JCP requires them to do (subject their Specs to EC votes, for example.) That doesn't necessarily mean that the requirements are a bad thing, or that we should turn a blind eye to violations of the process, or that the requirements should be watered down or dropped. Bring it on!
        Hide
        Bill Shannon added a comment -

        Note that generally it's not the Spec Lead who is maintaining the list of
        compatible implementations. More likely it's a Marketing or Product Management
        person.

        Show
        Bill Shannon added a comment - Note that generally it's not the Spec Lead who is maintaining the list of compatible implementations. More likely it's a Marketing or Product Management person.
        Hide
        starksm64 added a comment -

        The current http://java.net/projects/jsr348/downloads/download/Working%20documents/JCP%20NEXT%202.8-10AUG2011-Clean.pdf version states on line 302 that this is done quarterly and at every MR. Inclusion of the MR does not seem helpful as it is likely that only the RI has passed the TCK. The next quarterly report should pick up the new implementations passing any changes introduced in the MR. When MRs do exist, the compatibility report should be specifying to what MR the testing has been done.

        Show
        starksm64 added a comment - The current http://java.net/projects/jsr348/downloads/download/Working%20documents/JCP%20NEXT%202.8-10AUG2011-Clean.pdf version states on line 302 that this is done quarterly and at every MR. Inclusion of the MR does not seem helpful as it is likely that only the RI has passed the TCK. The next quarterly report should pick up the new implementations passing any changes introduced in the MR. When MRs do exist, the compatibility report should be specifying to what MR the testing has been done.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        As Scott Stark suggested, I've removed the requirement to report at Maintenance Release times.

        Re Bill Shannon's request that it permissible not to report if there's nothing new, we've discussed this several times and agreed that we want to hold the line.

        So - I'm closing this. Hopefully Bill himself won't have to do anything

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - As Scott Stark suggested, I've removed the requirement to report at Maintenance Release times. Re Bill Shannon's request that it permissible not to report if there's nothing new, we've discussed this several times and agreed that we want to hold the line. So - I'm closing this. Hopefully Bill himself won't have to do anything
        pcurran made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Status Open [ 1 ] Closed [ 6 ]
        Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]

          People

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

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: