<< Back to previous view

[JSR358-30] Create an Architecture Council? Created: 06/Jul/12  Updated: 20/Jul/12

Status: Open
Project: jsr358
Component/s: Governance
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Major
Reporter: pcurran Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Tags:
Participants: lightguard and pcurran

 Description   

Create an Architecture Council? Council would gather input from implementers, developers, and users and to provide guidance to Platform Expert Groups on platform evolution in the interests of maintaining competitiveness, compatibility and relevance.

The membership of this group should be primarily technical, and it must operate by consensus and through negotiation with the Platform Spec Leads.

Possible deliverables:

  • Yearly survey of the community
  • Written responses to Platform JSRs.


 Comments   
Comment by pcurran [ 06/Jul/12 10:11 PM ]

[This is a suggestion made several years ago, by Sun.]

For the record, both Bill Shannon (Java EE Spec Lead) and Mark Reinhold (Java SE Spec Lead) oppose this idea. They believe that the platform Expert Groups are the appropriate forum for these kinds of activities.

Comment by lightguard [ 20/Jul/12 07:29 PM ]

I think the main issue here is working with the community and getting their feedback. This was done fairly well with Java 7, at least much better than before. Whether there's an architecture council or not, communication and transparency are key here.





[JSR358-77] Update the EC Standing Rules Created: 10/Apr/14  Updated: 10/Apr/14

Status: Open
Project: jsr358
Component/s: Governance
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Minor
Reporter: heathervc Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Duplicate
duplicates JCPNEXT4-34 Update the EC Standing Rules Open
Tags:
Participants: heathervc and pcurran

 Description   

Update EC Standing Rules:
https://jcp.org/en/procedures/ec_standing_rules

1) Comply with JCP 2.9 requirements in Section 7:
https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#7

Item 5 Any vote may be accompanied by comments (which are are particularly encouraged in the case of abstentions.) When comments include specific suggestions for change these should be logged in the Issue Tracker to ensure that they are addressed. "No" votes must be accompanied by references to the Issue Tracker items (if any) that if resolved would persuade the member to change the vote to "yes".

Add requirements to Voting section of EC Standing Rules
https://jcp.org/en/procedures/ec_standing_rules#Voting

2) Add best practices for notifying appropriate JCP alias vs individual Program Office members for issues with voting, ballots, logging into EC accounts, etc.



 Comments   
Comment by pcurran [ 10/Apr/14 08:21 PM ]

Since the Process Document explicitly states the requirement to log issues to address concerns raised in comments I'm not sure we should duplicate this language in the Standing Rules.





Generated at Wed Apr 16 20:56:36 UTC 2014 using JIRA 4.0.2#472.