Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCKcompliance tes

[Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>]

None of the changes in the JESP replace an entire chapter of the EFSP, so we would have to "fork" at least a whole paragraph with the risk of  getting out of sync if that was later changed, otherwise, I guess we could, but adding new content that isn’t in the parent spec is of course easier than such fork.

 

Werner

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Scott Stark
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 18:36
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] Fair rules for "optional" TCKcompliance tests

 

But the EFSP is extended by the JESP. Cannot the JESP be updated without board involvement?

 

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 8:44 PM Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2020-07-02 7:05 p.m., Ed Bratt wrote:

I'd use 'requirements' instead of 'non-optional elements' but that's just me.

Since this is a language alteration to the EFSP, we'll eventually need to move this to the Spec. committee and then, I think we'll need some discussion at an even broader level.

The EFSP is now controlled by the Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors. A super-majority vote of the Board is required to change it. This puts it on par with the Eclipse Development Process.

There are also now multiple groups using the EFSP (Sparkplug, and soon AsciiDoc). They are certainly smaller and less complex than Jakarta EE, but their interests need to be respected when making any modifications.

Just wanted to make it clear that modifying the EFSP is now a more complex task than it was back in 2018 when it was being primarily formulated for the Jakarta EE Working Group.