Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging

This new process is frankly another area where far more community feedback is needed and I believe is currently missing.

If we indeed have to live with a rebranding, I believe what the majority of the community and industry would like to see is standardization via an existing body like ISO, ECMA or OASIS. That will carry much more weight with most of my customers than just the Eclipse Foundation as a replacement to the JCP. A majority of the actual work could still be done through the Eclipse Foundation.

Have these possibilities been discussed by the EE4J stakeholders? If so, what decisions were made and why? More importantly, shouldn't such decisions be made with the help of very broad community feedback?

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1/16/18 3:59 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Feedback to Joint Community Open Letter on Java EE Naming and Packaging

And that's great. A new process with the spirit of the JCP,  but without its lacks. I have no doubt this move will be beneficial for everybody.

But I can't consider it a JCP replacement (in the sense of the home for Java standards) if it lacks former privileges. There's where my doubts lay. 

El mar., 16 ene. 2018 21:51, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
On 2018-01-16 3:39 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero wrote:
> If the JCP doesn't fit the needs of Java EE nomore, then go *replace* it.

That is exactly what is happening here.

The Eclipse Foundation is going to be creating a new specification
process which will replace the role of the JCP as it currently pertains
to Java EE. That new spec process will hopefully fix many of the issues
with the JCP. I can guarantee that it will not have the existing "get
all the IP" Spec Lead role. Similarly I can guarantee that it will not
have any special votes or roles for Oracle or any other special company.

Mike Milinkovich
(m) +1.613.220.3223

ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top