RE: [sca-bpel] Getting ready for PRD

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

Don't we have a current standing rule for a 2/3 majority to re-open an issue?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: 03 March 2009 06:17
> To: 'OASIS BPEL'
> Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Getting ready for PRD
> 
> I would agree that we should have a higher bar for reopening an old
> issue, but not for opening a new issue. The problem I see in
> implementing this is that it requires the TC to decide whether an issue
> is the same as the one that is already closed. This isn't always
> black/white. This means majority can "reopen" an old issue by filing a
> new issue and claim that it is different (ever so slightly from the old
> one).
> 
> For simplicity, it seems to me that we should just scrap the 2/3rd rule
> once we go PR. I would hope that the majority would need lot of
> additional new convincing information to reopen an issue.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Martin Chapman wrote:
> > Anish,
> >
> > I'd be happy with not requiring 2/3 to open an issue, but I think we should still keep the 2/3 for
> re-opening a closed or deferred
> > issue, which will include pre-PR comments.
> >
> > Martin.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> >> Sent: 02 March 2009 19:57
> >> To: Danny van der Rijn
> >> Cc: OASIS BPEL
> >> Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Getting ready for PRD
> >>
> >> Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> >>>> Few things we need to agree on for PRD:
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Duration of the public review: OASIS process requires the 1st PR to
> >>>> be minimum of 60 days. I would like to suggest that we stick with the
> >>>> minimum.
> >>>>
> >>> +1.  (60, not 61 ^_^)
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) How to deal with issues raised during the PR period either by TC
> >>>> members or non-TC members?
> >>>> Per the process, the TC must acknowledge the receipt of each comment,
> >>>> track the comments received, and publish to its primary e-mail list the
> >>>> disposition of each comment at the end of the review period.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to suggest that we follow SCA Policy TC's lead. Which is to
> >>>>   create a new component/subcomponent in JIRA for PR comments. All new
> >>>> issues raised, after we agree on the PRD, either by non-members or
> >>>> members (on the TC list or the PR feedback list) be logged as new issues
> >>>> in the new component/subcomponent.
> >>>>
> >>> With what bar for opening the issue?  Still 2/3?
> >>>
> >> We had discussed this when we created the 2/3rd majority standing rule
> >> and the general sense of the TC was that the 2/3rd majority rule ends
> >> with PR. The rationale for that was: PR allows a non-member to send any
> >> comment they want. It would not make sense to have a higher bar for
> >> members. So no 2/3rd rule once we go PR, is what I'm proposing. But we
> >> should discuss this during the call reaffirm this (or not).
> >>
> >> -Anish
> >> --
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php