JCPNEXT4-33: Although there is no TCK for process-change JSRs we ought to "test" whether we successfully implement the changes we specify

[apastsya]

Jira issue originally created by user pcurran:

Appendix A of the Process Document makes it clear that for process-change JSRs there is not RI or TCK.

Another way to look at this is to say that the new version of the Process as implemented is the RI. From this perspective we really ought to specify a verification process to check whether what we implement actually conforms to what we specified in the JSR.

[apastsya]

• duplicates JSR358-75: Although there is no TCK for process-change JSRs we ought to "test" whether we successfully implement the changes we specify

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

We will discuss at the May EC F2F Meeting.

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

Discuss at the 27 May meeting.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Analysis

It would be helpful to have a mechanism to verify that we actually implement the changes specified in a process-change JSRs. It would also be helpful if that mechanism included an evaluation of whether or not the changes in practice turned out to be well-defined, and whether or not their implementation actually improved our processes.

Proposed solution

On completion of a process-change JSR the Expert Group should publish, in addition to the documents (Process Document, JSPA, Standing Rules, etc.) modified by the JSR, a JSR Review and Evaluation form. This form would consist of "testable assertions" and evaluation questions relating to each of the changes introduced by the JSR. At some period (six to nine months?) after the JSR is completed the EC would appoint a sub-committee that would use this form to review and evaluate the implementation of the JSR. After completing the review the sub-committee would report their results back to the full EC, which would then take any actions it might think necessary to correct or improve the implementation of the JSR. In the interests of transparency the results of the review would be made public.

Taking a very simple example from the changes proposed by JSR 364, Issue #28 states that Maintenance Review Ballots should be increased from 7 days to 14 days in order to bring these into line with all other review ballots. The following questions relating to this change might be inserted into the JSR Review and Evaluation form:

• Has the PMO modified the Maintenance Review Ballot from 7 days to 14 days?
• Have at least three Maintenance Review Ballots been held under the new process?
• Have there been any problems associated with this change?
• Has the introduction of this change been beneficial?

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Suggested text has been incorporated into version 3 of the revised Process Document.

[apastsya]

Comment created by jpampuch:

Appropriate text has been integrated into the document and this item should be closed.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Closing, as per John's recommendation.

[apastsya]

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"