search

apastsya / jcpnext4

0 stars 0 forks source link

JCPNEXT4-31: Require Spec/Maintenance Lead to make statement for Release Ballots on expectations for follow-on work #27

Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Jira issue originally created by user pcurran:

Currently we can't distinguish between JSRs that are "finished" (have released what the Spec/Maintenance Lead believes to be the final version) and those that are expected to be actively maintained.

If we required a statement from the Spec/Maintenance Lead on whether they expect to continue to work on the JSR (either in maintenance mode or by submitting a new (version x+1) JSR that would be useful information to record on the JSR page.

Any changes in this area would probably go into Section 4.3 of the Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago
apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

Patrick to comment

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

We also should address in section 5.1 the IP transfer if a ML member leaves the JCP to enable smooth transition and also if we want to define in more detail what constitutes a MR vs a a new JSR. See marked up Process Document.

Add a statement about future plans.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Heather's suggestion in the previous comment really should be a separate issue. I'll clone this and make it so.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Suggested fix:

Add to section 3.4.2 3.4.2 FINAL APPROVAL BALLOT

"In order to assist the PMO in tracking the number of “Active JSRs”, at the time of submission of the final materials the Spec Lead shall inform the PMO whether it is expected that the JSR will be further developed via Maintenance Releases or a new follow-on JSR."

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Suggested text has been added to version 3 of the draft Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by jpampuch:

This issue is addressed in the EDR and can be closed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

John Pampuch has verified that this issue is fixed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"