While I agree with Martin's line of reasoning, I agree with Anish's
line of pragmatism. We could get ourselves into more process issues by
discussing whether a PR comment is new or not [and vote on it?? By
what margin :-) ]
I'm actually not too worried about this - more just wanted to be
clear. I predict that we won't have much discussion of what's old and
what's new, what's worth opening, and what's not. Just extrapolating
on the differences between the BPEL committee and this, um, SBPEL,
committee.
Anish Karmarkar wrote:
49ACCB53.10607@oracle.com" type="cite">
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
|