search

apastsya / jcpnext4

0 stars 0 forks source link

JCPNEXT4-51: Clarify Maintenance process #45

Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Jira issue originally created by user pcurran:

In section 3.5.1...

See marked up Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

On re-reading the current language that discusses what is appropriate for a Maintenance Release and what should be deferred to a new JSR it seems to be specific enough. I propose making no changes here.

As for the transfer of IP, suggest adding the following text to section 3.5.2 Relinquishing Ownership:

"In order to facilitate such a transfer of responsibilities the outgoing Maintenance Lead is strongly encouraged to transfer all Intellectual Property rights in the existing JSR to the new ML."

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

The suggested text has been added to version 3 of the revised Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by jpampuch:

The changes regarding a smooth transition of control of a JSR are in the EDR as proposed. Arguably, it might be better if the transfer of IP were more firmly mandated (e.g., "must" instead of "strongly encouraged") but I suspect that would be far more difficult to get agreement on.

I agree that the change proposed to clarify MRs vs new JSRs is unnecessary as the current text is reasonable and clear.

This issue can be closed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

We cannot mandate that member companies transfer IP as John suggests.

Otherwise, as he has verified, this is fixed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"