search

apastsya / jcpnext4

0 stars 0 forks source link

JCPNEXT4-18: PMO should not be involved in Early Draft Review #21

Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Jira issue originally created by user shannon:

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.

apastsya commented 10 years ago
apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

We will discuss this issue at the May 2014 F2F Meeting in London as part of JSR 364.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by keilw:

Will add more during the F2F, but it seems, in the absense of a unified infrastructure to automate this (a'la Hudson/Jenkins) e.g. at Java.net, the PMO's manual effort is hard to reduce or replace.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by shannon:

I don't understand what automation you have in mind.

Why isn't it sufficient for the PMO to do nothing?

Why isn't it sufficient for the EG to publish drafts however it wants?

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

I also have no idea what "automation" has to do with this but the EC has discussed this suggestion in some detail. We agreed that even though we want to encourage Expert Groups to "publish early and often" there nevertheless is significant value in having formal review processes.

Consequently, we decided to make no changes in this area.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

See earlier comment

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Issue was closed with resolution "Won't Fix"