|Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection|
On 3/27/18 9:59 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
If you're talking about representation on the EE4J top-level PMC then I'm not sure why all the discussion appears to be focussed on the EF. I would imagine that when the projects are actually provisioned (and it looks like only EclipseLink is currently there), that the PMC will expand to include representation from the projects as happens in most other TLPs (e.g Tools and Science).
EclipseLink was born under the EF back in 2007, so the change here was just about changing its top-level project.
according to the latest publicly available status there are few more projects which has been already provisioned, refer to  for complete list.
thanks, --lukas : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EclipseLink : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopLink#History : https://www.eclipse.org/ee4j/status.php
Yes, the EF has requirements for approvals. It has very structured processes in place for governance and IP. Sure there are some pain points associated with these, but they can also be seen as its strengths. In general (over the 14 years I've been involved), I've only seen things evolve towards helping create an ecosystems that thrives.Regards, GregOn Mar 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Mariano Amar <mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Hi Greg,Being able to do whatever you want at the project level is completely useless if you're trying to build something that is supposed to be part of an umbrella project that has requirements for specs, approval, etc.You might as well just create your own library/app/framework, and toss Jakarta EE to the wayside.That's the point we're trying to make here.Nobody is disputing the project level interaction. That will work the same way any FOSS project has ever worked (for a given idea of "any"). People will contribute, some will report issues, some will find fixes, some will advance the code, some will complete the docs.That part will be organical enough. No issues there.Yes, committers will have a lot of power at the project level, that's not being disputed. But they'll have pretty much none when deciding which projects are actually worth being labeled as "Jakarta EE Ready/Compliant", or when defining what those compliance tests must be, what the specs must be for any tech within Jakarta EE, or even which technologies are wanted as part of Jakarta EE.If you can have a few hundred people working on a project, organically, only for the big vendors to decide that they don't care for the tech that project covers? There you go, your project might as well be a third-party library that doesn't check any Jakarta specs compliance.I don't want to throw any stones in any direction, but what would keep big paying companies from doing what Oracle did with Java EE, when the Java EE Guardians had to fight for a year for the community to be told what Oracle wanted out of Java EE (much less for them to continue working on it)? Yes, now we don't have Oracle as the be-all end-all of the process, but the issue is still there, just a bit more diluted between multiple companies.*<http://www.wes-it.com/>* *Mariano Amar* /Senior Consultant/*email/hangouts:*mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:franco.guarnieri@xxxxxxxxxx>*skype:* marianoamar* * www.wes-it.com <http://www.wes-it.com/> AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICOEsta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx>) o por teléfono (+54 11 3249 7503)This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx>) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Everyone seems to be missing the point that EF *members*, strategic or otherwise, have little influence on a particular project, only on the EF as a whole. It's the committers and contributors who determine the direction of a project and its technical content. If you want to have influence, get active, contribute, and get nominated as a committer. It's free. Any company can pay as much as it likes, but that doesn't guarantee influence at the project level. Just my 2c worth. Greg _______________________________________________ ee4j-community mailing list ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community> _______________________________________________ ee4j-community mailing list ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit_______________________________________________ ee4j-community mailing list ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
Back to the top