Re: JSR 286: Portlet Specification 2.0

[Stefan Hepper <st...@apache.org>]

Hi David,

David Sean Taylor wrote:

> David H. DeWolf wrote:
>
>> Hey David,
>>
>> I have no problem with you representing Apache, though I still would
>> be interested in participating myself as an individual . . .what do
>> you think the weekly commitment is?
>
>
> It depends on what you put into it.
> Shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 hours of your week on average, with 
> busy spikes when you get traction into a particular issue.
>
>>
>> More importantly, how do you envision the RI being implemented? If the
>> spec can't be discussed on list before release, how do we avoid a code
>> drop like before?  Do you think it would be possible to have a private
>> list for commiters that signed an NDA to communicate about drafts? 
>> Any other creative ideas?
>>
>> David
>>
> I believe we should make every effort to have the RI developed at 
> Pluto, fully in the open for everyone to see and participate. I 
> *really* want to avoid the code drop / private list, thats just plain 
> wrong.  Lets see what Stefan can tell us about the NDA, since he works 
> closely with the JCP as an expert group lead. If the JCP tries to keep 
> this JSR closed again, then its time for creative ideas...
>
>
The thing is that all members of the EG must give their OK to have a 
public mailing list, if one objects you need to have a private one. Once 
the JSR is approved and the EG is in place I'll propose a public mailing 
list.
One thing that is now better than in JSR 168 is that you can make early 
public drafts available and give people a chance to comment and 
implement the spec. I hope that this will make it much more open.


Stefan