| Re: [jakarta.ee-wg] Approval announcemens |
You are correct on many levels. I write not to debunk your points, but to support them and give some of my perspective on where we are. First, the post [1] should never have happened via our blog and I consider that an oversight on my part and not a pattern I'd want to see us continue as a community. NoSQL is an oddball in that it was an attempt by the Jakarta EE Working Group to show interim progress -- the official Jakarta EE Specification Process was still being created. Going forward, here's the process that should be used: - https://www.eclipse.org/projects/efsp/#efsp-version-lifecycle My expectation is that this process will be carried out at least as openly as the JCP. Specifically proposals will be public as will vote results, including who voted what and any comments they may have with their vote. In the JCP results are not published until voting is over, which I think is fine. As long as they do get published that's what's important, IMO. In terms of NoSQL, I recall Bill Shannon strongly advocating "when we finish the Jakarta EE Specification Process we will need to come back and officially put NoSQL through it." There were nods at the time, but I don't know if that decision was officially made. I don't believe we went back and put it through an official creation review -- if we did, I missed it and the process is too subtle for even me to notice and I'm on the Specification Committee. If it is now an official project and we did not formally go through the Creation Review, maybe we want to do that just so our first project has some public record that represents what we expect from all future projects. Either way, your note is great. Macro-level, I think we're still pretty far from where we want to be, but getting closer. That doesn't mean everyone should stop sending feedback like yours, it means more should. It's ok to talk about where we want to be. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Jun 14, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Oliver Drotbohm <ogierke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi all, > > can someone clarify how announcements like this [0] come to be? I've read up in the minutes of the committee meetings, been following all JNoSQL related mailing lists, gave feedback and tried to follow the project as close as possible. Still I haven't seen any public discussion about this and am surprised to see projects announced as "approved". Given the name of "Jakarta NoSQL" does that mean it's going to be come a spec? > > This kind of development has had precedence in September last year [1] when again the project was announced as first JakartaEE specification without any formal backing of this. Is the new mode of operation we have to expect for JakartaEE? Vendors announcing projects by them being a standard without any kind of public trail in the first place? > > I've brought this up in a smaller round before and am surprised to see that MO being used again. This makes a very bad impression on the process in the first place as – no matter how much the new openness is praised publicly – it's fundamentally subverted by the actual decisions either not being made in the way documented or the decision process not being documented as proposed. Why am I supposed to get involved in the public channels if decisions like those are made at will? > > Maybe I just got lost in the amount of mailing lists and missed the communication around this. Any insights appreciated. > > Cheers, > Ollie > > [0] https://dzone.com/articles/moving-jakarta-forward-jakarta-nosql-has-approved > [1] https://www.tomitribe.com/blog/jnosql-and-jakarta-ee/ > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP