Draft proposal: JEP 2.0

Mike Duigou mike.duigou at oracle.com
Fri Apr 11 03:41:40 UTC 2014

Some comments.


- I'll add my voice to Bob's that we want only one system of record for JEPs and that should be JBS. JEPs are either managed entirely within JBS or we shouldn't bother with using JBS for JEPS at all. If we are going to go with the many-staged workflow described in the proposal then having JBS to manage that workflow would be a huge boon.

- "Alert Status (updated weekly once Funded)". This seems onerous for projects that are green (or irredeemably yellow). Required increment-the-date weekly updates has been a significant annoyance for internal processes which I would prefer not to repeat with JEPs.


- The diagram unfortunately reminds me too much of a LHC "Higgs Boson detection event" graphic. Many of these states are overlapping and are worked coincidentally. Since only some of them are strictly gating can we collapse the softer states to a smaller number of strictly gating states?


- The JEP process doesn't feel very approachable to an outsider/first time submitter. Either we have to provide a lot more guidance about how to fill out a JEP and/or make the process simpler. This has been a consistent comment from both Oracle internal and external JEP authors. The typical pattern seems to be to get someone else who's previously successfully filed a JEP to file your JEP for you or to crib answers from some other JEP. Submitters should be able to readily provide the necessary information or recognize that they aren't ready to file their JEP, but most importantly, they should be able to know mostly independently whether they have supplied the appropriate responses.


More information about the discuss mailing list