Your draft works great. Thank you for the time and write-up.
Correct, in January with John via the thread, we discovered 3 MP drives, not 2. John will figure out how to transfer the past years agenda minutes folder to the main folder under the working drive space.
The MP drive access is unchanged, view access in all the folders is public & a Gmail account is not needed to check stuff. That drive is linked under the MP Branding Resources page as a reference as well.
The 1 MPWG formal drive discussed for the vote is a requirement under the Eclipse WG. It must be housed and maintained by the Steering committee and the EF EMO team.
Today, the MPWG drive gives edit/write access to anyone listed in the steering committee. We fixed that access back in November/Dec via another thread.
Once the drive vote completes, the documentation in the new MPWG page on the website will re-start via git issues. There are already many documents relevant to the WG added to the page but its view is not public.
A good problem to have, the git issues were created for each document, as the document become final. The git issues were tackled (exported) to the new MPWG webpage faster than making the drive public. :) As stated on this week's call, we actually forgot to close this conversation while moving forward. Lots of discussions have passed since October about additional MPWG infra and its maintenance.
On that note, I could send the vote using your template by the end of today. Thank you for rocking it, Ed!
I didn't realize there were so many questions associated with
this. If this is to be formalized, maybe a resolution like the
following might be a useful starting point:
------
Resolved the MicroProfile working group approves establishing a
shared public repository on Google Drive, for maintaining
documents and material it deems suitable for public access. The
name of this drive shall be "fill this in."
Resolved, all designated members of the steering committee shall
be granted read/write access to this drive, it's folders and all
contents. Access to unauthenticated users shall (or shall not) be
allowed.
Resolved, the MicroProfile working group shall initially make the
following
documents and files, already available on Google Drive, available
in this public repository:
Resolved by electronic vote held from start-date ending end-date
-------
There appear to be multiple Google Drives discussed. In addition
to the drive John mentioned (listed above) the drive,
"MicroProfile Drive" (here)
is also referenced in Amelia's messages. And possibly more drives
that I didn't catch. According to the sharing link, offered by
Google Drive, the "MicroProfile Drive" appears to already have
public read-only access while the "MicroProfile (External) ->
Community" drive appears to only be shared with named accounts.
Regardless -- since this may have become more formal, I would
recommend the initial contents, at least to some degree, be
identified. All current members of the steering committee should
be granted access (if they don't have it already) to whatever is
being proposed to initially seed this repository so they can
resolve any content questions they might have.
One question I'd have is: do we want all members to have complete
discretion to add/remove/update these contents? Or, should that be
considered in the resolution as well?
Perhaps I'm just over-complicating this.
If not, I guess it seems that whomever is putting forth this
resolution (Amelia?) should adjust the resolution wording I
started (or start over) so it is to their liking and then submit
this to the members for further discussion and finally a vote.
Cheers,
-- Ed
On 2/10/2021 10:19 AM, Amelia Eiras
wrote:
I
appreciate this exchange. As usual Kevin, you make me smile.
Ok, I
will create a general e-BALLOT template we could use for
non-code votes & resubmit for the drive public vs private
vote. I will also add an explanation and some links to help
track why the vote is necessary formalizing it is necessary
based on feedback!
This
brings me to the thought that we ought to also drop the final
count on general votes into the external-drive for record as
we do for other votes results.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:21
AM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sharon, Good
idea. But,
we are even more blatant on the Jakarta EE side... :-)
When
we need a formal vote we start off the Subject line with
this: [BALLOT]
...
I wouldn't
mind
seeing a similar convention here. But, at least starting a
separate
thread for recording the votes is required, imho. Thanks!
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter:
@kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
Steering Committee Electronic
Vote:
<name the subject matter>
This makes the subject line very
explicit
and perhaps easier to locate in the threads?
Regards, Sharon
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM
Amelia
Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: Both of your
feedback
are spot on. The
discussion for
the need for the external drive using the EF infra and then
the need for
the drive to have a public view access + informal
vote didn't follow
the regular MPWG process. I believe that was due to end of
the year
priorities. Only today with wonderful Sharon in the
Community call, I noticed
that we still had it pending on tasks.
I am happy to
use
the template ballet to initiate a formal vote, if you think
it necessary.
I'm sorry,
this
is still unclear to me... There is so much "noise" in these
various threads that I have no idea what I am voting on.
I'm impressed
that so many others seem to know exactly what's being voted
on. I
can't find a [BALLOT] thread. I can't find a clear
statement of what's
being requested. Not only is this confusing, but it's also
not suitable
for record keeping. If a formal vote for this MPWG External
Drive
is required, then I say we have to start over with a clear
BALLOT statement.
Sorry to be a pain, but we can do better than this.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM e-mail:
sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter:
@kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
MicroProfile Steering Committee,
Today, during the MP Community call, I released that the
informal vote
after the infra/maintance infra discussion about the 2nd
MPgoogle
drive was never finalized.
We decided that 72hrs (Friday, Feb. 12th) should enable any
steering member
who has yet to vote to do so via this thread or who has
voted before via
the other threads to do so again. 💛 This thread is created
to
use Ed's wonderful feedback. [Ed, you are spot on to
separate votes,
even if seemed informal, it does matter to keep votes
threads separate.]
_______________________________________________ microprofile-wg mailing list microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg