Query/comments on proposed by-laws

[David Holmes]

Section 4 Groups states:
"Groups do not have code repositories of their own but they may sponsor 
  Projects, which do. "

Is this a prohibition or just an expectation? I'm unclear on the notion 
of "ownership" here and the implications. For example, at present the 
Hotspot group uses numerous repositories within the JDK7 forest, and 
while I would have said the Hotspot group owns them, it may be more 
correct to the say the JDK7 project owns them and the Hotspot group just 
uses them within the context of the JDK7 project. However, moving 
forward the Hotspot group has expressed a request that its repositories 
be independent of the current JDK version and so there are no hotspot 
repositories under jdk8 but rather they have been created as a hsx 
forest. Does this rule imply that there needs to be a "Hotspot Express" 
project, sponsored by the Hotspot group, which then owns the hsx 
repositories? Or does the jdk8 project implicitly own the hsx 
repositories (at least until jdk9 comes along)? The more I think about 
it the more unclear is the relationship between groups, projects and 
repositories.

---

Section 7 Project Roles:

The relationship between group membership and project "membership" is 
unclear. Do the authors/commiters/reviewers of a project have to be 
members of the sponsoring group? Do group members have any automatic 
role in the projects the group sponsors?

Does a project have to publicly list all its authors/commiters/reviewers ?

How do projects relate to each other? For example we presently have 
Project Lambda looking at defining closures with the intent to make them 
part of the Java language in JDK8. But the JDK8 project is responsible 
for defining everything in JDK8, so how is the connection between the 
two projects made? Is there a notion of sub-projects?

How do Projects relate to Java Specification Requests and the JCP process?

Both Project leads and Group Leads can delegate obligations but not 
authority. This would seem to be problematic if the lead may be away 
even for just a couple of weeks. Is there provision for appointing an 
interim-lead in such circumstances?

---

Technical Appeals Process:

There seems to be no time constraint on the formation of the panel of 
experts.

There seems to be no time-limit on when an appeal must be lodged after a 
decision by the OpenJDK Lead has been made.

---

Transitioning to these Bylaws

As part of the transition will the newly appointed Project leads, 
formulate and make public the initial set of authors/commiters/reviewers 
for each project?

Thank you,
David Holmes