[JSR358-16] PMO should not be involved in Early Draft Review Created: 20/Sep/11  Updated: 10/Apr/14

Status: Reopened
Project: jsr358
Component/s: JSR lifecycle
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Improvement Priority: Major
Reporter: Bill Shannon Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Duplicate
is duplicated by JCPNEXT4-18 PMO should not be involved in Early D... Closed

 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.



 Comments   
Comment by pcurran [ 22/Sep/11 ]

We discussed this at the September 21 Working Group meeting, and agreed that there is value to having a formal review process. (Note also that we tie this to the time-out requirements.)

I'm closing this for now, but have added it to the JSR2 list for future consideration.

Comment by Bill Shannon [ 22/Sep/11 ]

I think it's sufficient that the formal review process start with Public Review.
Ditto the timeout.

Comment by pcurran [ 22/Sep/11 ]

I still don't want to make such an extensive change at this late stage.

I reopened, and deferred the issue. We'll look at it again later...

Comment by keilw [ 30/Jan/13 ]

As there are Renewal Ballots now actively conducted, does this still make sense, at least the "review, whenever it wants, as often as it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to inform the PMO." part?

Generated at Sat Jul 04 21:40:21 UTC 2015 using JIRA 6.2.3#6260-sha1:63ef1d6dac3f4f4d7db4c1effd405ba38ccdc558.