Inconsistencies in new project process

[Roman Kennke]

Hi Dalibor,

Thanks for the clarifications! I believe it would be helpful, if the
document itself could be updated to make life easier for future
proposals.

Speaking of proposals, what happened to the Shenandoah project
proposal/CFV? I sent it to announce at openjdk.java.net 3 weeks (!) ago,
but it hasn't shown up. I suspected the person in charge of moderating
the list (Mark Reinhold?) is in summer vacation... Should I re-send it?
(The deadline mentioned in the CFV is not correct anymore...) And when
would be a good time?

Roman

> > while going through the project proposal for Shenandoah, I noticed
> > some
> > inconsistencies or confusing details in the new project process
> > described here:
> > 
> > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project
> > 
> > - it says 'Step 0: Discuss [optional]' but then in that same
> > paragraph
> > 'At least one Group Lead must declare that their Group is a sponsor
> > of
> > the proposed Project.' Now what is it? Optional or must?
> 
> The discussion itself is optional, but support from a Group Lead is
> not. See http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#_6 :
> 
> "Any Contributor may propose the creation of a new Project. If
> supported by at least one Group Lead, whose Group will Sponsor the
> Project, and approved by a Lazy Consensus of the OpenJDK Members,
> then the Project will be created."
> 
> Note that the CFV ballot also contains the name of the sponsoring
> Group.
> 
> > - It says 'Eligible voters cast their vote by sending e-mail to the
> > general discussion list. Replying to the proposal will achieve this
> > automatically for those people whose mail programs honor the
> > Reply-To header.'
> > 
> > Is this done automatically, or does the nominator have to put the
> > Reply
> > -To header in his proposal? Would be good to clarify this.
> 
> The nominator should set the Reply-To header.
> 
> > - "Votes must be cast in the open, on the mailing list to which the
> > call-for-votes was originally sent"
> > 
> > This seems to be in conflict with voting on the discuss mailing
> > list
> > (the CFV is sent to announce).
> 
> I think that is (or was) just a cut & paste error.
> 
> cheers,
> dalibor topic 
> 
>