Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [EXTERNAL] Get clarity on process for obtai

[Edward Burns <Edward.Burns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Trying to wrap this up so I can continue.

Ed:

EB> How much latitude do I have as release co-coordinator in
EB> conducting the discussions and deciding on new specs to add to EE
EB> 11?

EB> I know the tradition of using +1, 0, -1 votes cast via email is
EB> old and venerable.  And I hate it. May I please use a proper
EB> voting tool?

Ivar:

IG> My personal opinion is that the mailing list should be used. It is
IG> a requirement that it is documented on an open and persistent
IG> medium, and currently, the mailing lists are the only tool that
IG> fulfills that requirement. I don't see any reason why we should
IG> introduce another tool.

EDP> From the EDP
EDP> (https://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/#4_7_Committers_and_Contributors):
EDP> "Committers are required to monitor the mailing lists associated
[...]
EDP> required to track, participate in, and vote on, relevant
EDP> discussions in their associated Projects. There are three voting
EDP> responses: +1 (yes), -1 (no, or veto), and 0 (abstain).

Emily:

EJ> I suggest just doing 3 independent voting as following:
EJ> Data (yes|no)
EJ> JNoSQL (yes|no)
EJ> MVC (yes|no)

EJ> They are independent. It will be much simpler just to list one at a time. 

David:

DB> I'm definitely a fan of ranked choice voting and *very* glad we're
DB> discussing it.  Not sure it works here as our "boxes" are
DB> effectively zero to unlimited, so the math of ranked-choices
DB> against a fixed number of boxes doesn't really apply.

I don't feel I have the authority to insist on RCV. The fact remains:
even if the voting results in a non-zero number of new specs suggested
for inclusion in EE 11, when the Platform Project submits the Plan
including those new specs, the parties that vote on approving the Plan
have the final say.

I will follow Emily and Ivar's suggestion for conducting the
ballots. I don't believe this system does the best job at representing
majority opinion, but it probably does the best job in producing a
Plan that can be approved.

## Proposal

Start discussion threads for each specification.  Let the discussion
run as long as it needs to.

Subject: [DISCUSS] Include Jakarta MVC in EE 11
Subject: [DISCUSS] Include Jakarta Data in EE 11
Subject: [DISCUSS] Include Jakarta NoSQL in EE 11

Conduct two rounds of ballots.

### Round 1: In/Out

Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta MVC in EE 11
Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta Data in EE 11
Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta NoSQL in EE 11

### Round 2: Which platform (if necessary)

For each spec that gets through Round 1:

Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta X in Core Profile
Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta X in Web Profile
Subject: [BALLOT] Include Jakarta X in Platform Profile

Let the ballot run for 14 calendar days.


| edburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | office: +1 954 727 1095
| Calendar Booking: https://aka.ms/meetedburns
| 
| Please don't feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside
| of your normal working hours.
| 
| Reply anonymously to this email: https://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/contact