Re: [cn4j-alliance] Thoughts on the CN4J purpose

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok thanks for letting me know. I have updated the sharing permissions to allow comments.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:52 AM Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Scott,

Thanks for getting the ball rolling.  I couldn't find a way to comment on the deck itself?

Cheers,
Martijn

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 17:43, Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here are some initial thoughts on what CN4J needs to address and how that might happen. These are largely Red Hat's current views. The document is open to anyone with the link. Feel free to comment here or in the document. 

This will be a lengthy discussion that we expect to involve members of both Jakarta and MicroProfile communities as well as their respective committees.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g6_DFSxFCHYPlQVyKnMkSD9VJIHgI42Q1lTqPlhvuVU/edit?usp=sharing

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance

_______________________________________________
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance