Re: Restore write access for all EG members?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Will Hopkins <will.hopkins@...> wrote:
I personally think this is fundamental though for the perception of the JSR.
Java EE JSRs have been opening up more over time and as a result became more successful. This cycle, JSF and Java EE Security have been particularly open and have been a great success.
It's not in either my or the other experienced EG members best interest either to make unwarranted and undiscussed changes. Trust and community engagement are important things and I feel that's currently not optimal this way. I'm absolutely sure that people like Werner, Ivar, Rudy and myself are just as careful as you would be.
You also mentioned wanting to close the Soteria RI, but that's IMHO certainly not needed. To the best of my knowledge, even the more conservative specs have not closed the implementation project for their regular committers. The Mojarra project, where I'm a committer as well, certainly did not do this.
Indeed, it's still open, and really should stay open. There are lots of things that need to be done still that have no effect on the spec proper, not in the least expanding the test suite.
Absolutely, and that is I think the understanding of everyone. We're all experienced and dedicated people here, so taking myself as example, there really should be no need to assume I would suddenly do a large undiscussed commit.
I think nobody is saying that the app server vendor POV is not important, of course it is. But don't forget that I work for an app server vendor as well, so your concern is the same as my concern ;)
Ideally, in my vision of the JCP process, there should be representatives from every POV in the EG. The library vendor, the app server vendor, the consultant, the "regular" application developer, the big enterprise, the smaller company and what have you. But the spec lead should not directly be representing any of these POVs, but ideally, in my opinion, should be balancing the concerns of all of those.
I know this all too well indeed, as we've recently finished the JSF spec in which I had a major role.
As far as the TCK is concerned, I'd really like to contribute to that as well in whatever shape or form (I'll start a separate thread for this).
The crux of the problem here as I see it, is that the assumption is then that there are going to be many such reverts.
My assumption is that there won't be much if any such revert needed, as we're all experienced and responsible people here. If a revert would ever be needed since it broke something, then I'm sure such a revert might just as well have been needed if it happened via an approved PR.
We didn't do any rash commits when the spec lead was no where near in sight and we still had all the time in the world. For example, I did *a lot* of work for the authorization rules story last July and August, but I didn't put that in the spec since I felt not enough EG feedback had been given after I presented it.
Okay, thanks in advance for that :)