Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago
apastsya
commented
13 years ago Comment created by sean_sheedy:
Related:
799-807 - the nomination process is controlled by Oracle, not the PMO and it has been said as much in the EC. So either change PMO to "Oracle" (for truth in advertising) or drop ratified seats or change PMO to EC.
PC> And the PMO is chosen by Oracle. If you insist on this change, please log an issue.
apastsya
commented
13 years ago Comment created by pcurran:
I've changed the relevant words to: "Oracle nominates Members to fill the vacant Ratified Seats with due regard for balanced community and regional representation."
As for your other more random comments...
"1) I think the promise of Java as an open platform is being approached when the EC chooses ratified seats. However the mix needs to include a balance of corporations, JUGs and individual voices. The purpose of ratified seats must be to ensure a balance of representation which can change from year to year among elected seats. Again this is an EC role and requires a balanced EC to begin with (balance of corporate, JUG, and independent individual interests.) Falls under category of "controversial" but other controversial changes have been made within this JSR."
As the text quoted above says, we do expect that the ratified seats will be filled with due regard for balance.
"2) Strike references to future changes to EC composition. Anyone elected/ratified to a seat should be grandfathered into their original terms. This is not only for the EC member's benefit but also for the community that elected that member and has expectations on how long they'll remain in the seat. Eliminates hairy future discussions about who gets their terms cut short, which is bound to waste EC time that could be better spent on issues of importance."
This has already been addressed (and rejected :( in a separate issue
"3) Though not part of this JSR, I must reiterate that revision of the composition of the ME EC should be placed on hold until the Google/Oracle legal matter is settled, as I've heard from others that the possibility exists that the outcome can profoundly impact the vibrancy of Java ME in either direction."
Indeed - not part of this JSR, hence irrelevant...
apastsya
commented
13 years ago Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"
Jira issue originally created by user sean_sheedy:
Process Document review
line numbers: JCP-2.8-21SEP2011-Redlined.pdf
799-807 - Not sure where I stand with ratified seats but a minimum the EC if not the membership should be able to provide names. I thought we discussed this but it is not in this document. Also strike bullet point two, as it predicts an event (merging the ECs) which has not happened yet and won't happen until there is a vote to do this. In the event the Google/Oracle lawsuit is settled in a way that makes ME "exciting" it would be a mistake to reduce the number of seats given the diversity of issues in ME and SE/EE.
PC> If by "provide names" you mean "make suggestions" then of course this is possible. I think we agreed to encourage the EC to make recommendations to Oracle. I don't think it's necessary to call this out in the Process Document. As for reducing the number of seats, that's a matter for the next JSR and you should bring it up there.
SS> Raising here since this JSR includes other controversial issues. Three points here:
1) I think the promise of Java as an open platform is being approached when the EC chooses ratified seats. However the mix needs to include a balance of corporations, JUGs and individual voices. The purpose of ratified seats must be to ensure a balance of representation which can change from year to year among elected seats. Again this is an EC role and requires a balanced EC to begin with (balance of corporate, JUG, and independent individual interests.) Falls under category of "controversial" but other controversial changes have been made within this JSR. 2) Strike references to future changes to EC composition. Anyone elected/ratified to a seat should be grandfathered into their original terms. This is not only for the EC member's benefit but also for the community that elected that member and has expectations on how long they'll remain in the seat. Eliminates hairy future discussions about who gets their terms cut short, which is bound to waste EC time that could be better spent on issues of importance. 3) Though not part of this JSR, I must reiterate that revision of the composition of the ME EC should be placed on hold until the Google/Oracle legal matter is settled, as I've heard from others that the possibility exists that the outcome can profoundly impact the vibrancy of Java ME in either direction.