Re: [jakarta.ee-community] [microprofile] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE, Glas

[Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree with removing the EE4j implementations as manifest
elements of the Jakarta EE WG, and merging the EE/MP WGs.

I don't see a need for a new working group to deal with this
separation as these are open source projects that can live within the
existing Eclipse Foundation development process.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 9:36 PM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Moving MicroProfile into the Jakarta EE Working Group and disbanding the MicroProfile Working Group requires a super-majority vote.  There are currently four -1 votes and not enough +1 votes to make this happen.  Tomitribe, Atlanta JUG and Committer Rep Emerson Castaneda represent 3 of those -1 votes.
>
> We have a proposal we'd like to discuss with the respective communities that would allow the three of us to vote +1, guaranteeing enough votes to move MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.
>
> The Jakarta EE Working Group (WG) charter currently includes GlassFish and other Eclipse implementations within EE4J.  The Jakarta EE WG marketing is used to promote and award contributions to GlassFish as contributions to Jakarta EE.  The Jakarta EE WG budget is used to fund infrastructure for building GlassFish/EE4J and swag for top GlassFish/EE4J committers.  There is currently "Jakarta EE Community Mentor" proposal which will use all Jakarta EE channels to recognize, promote and award contributions to WG projects, including GlassFish/EE4J, excluding other implementations.
>
> While the charter does contain "Provide vendor neutral marketing and other services to the Jakarta EE ecosystem", in practice marketing and budget are provided to GlassFish/EE4J in ways it will not extend to other vendors.  The justification is that GlassFish/EE4J are part of the Jakarta EE Working Group and other implementations are not.
>
> Our proposal is to move GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group where these activities can happen without compromising the vendor neutrality goal of Jakarta EE.  In short:
>
> - Establish an EE4J Working Group and move all implementations out of Jakarta EE
> - Move Jakarta EE budget line items associated with implementations (Infra $60k, etc) into EE4J Working Group
> - Bootstrap this from the current year Jakarta EE budget as we did to start the MicroProfile Working Group
>
> - Dissolve the MicroProfile Working Group and move all specs to Jakarta EE
> - Increase Jakarta EE budget $50k to ensure Eclipse does not lose the $50k MicroProfile Working Group budget
> - Revise Jakarta EE charter to remove references to EE4J (PMC representation on Jakarta EE committees would remain intact)
> - Add requirement that inclusive vendor-neutral criteria will be established for marketing and other services extended to implementations in the Jakarta EE ecosystem
>
> If there was support for moving GlassFish/EE4J to a separate Working Group, this commitment to neutrality would be applauded and we would vote +1 on moving MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.  If all voices come with "why is this so bad" and general pushback, then we do not see value in moving MicroProfile to a Working Group that does not prioritize neutrality.
>
> Would there be support for such a proposal to unite Jakarta EE / MicroProfile in a vendor-neutral Working Group and elevate GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group?
>
>
> -David
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/D26E33B4-B6D5-40C4-8B1C-C118D5C91E43%40tomitribe.com.