Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>  However,
I don't know if Bill's stated intent of having MicroProfile join Jakarta
EE is a good topic to be discussing as yet. I would rather focus everyone's
attention and energy on getting the JCP specs into Jakarta EE and enabling
their evolution. We cannot claim to have a functioning Jakarta EE process
for MicroProfile to join until we've accomplished that. 

A hearty +1 !


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:      
 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:      
 12/18/2018 09:53 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
MicroProfile TCK Process
Sent by:    
   jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Without getting into specific solutions I have to add
that the Eclipse Foundation itself has opinions about specification processes.
As an institution we have learned an enormous amount over the past year
about the legal frameworks relevant to specification-setting organizations
(SSO). MicroProfile started out as an adventure in agile processes. But
its very success has meant that at least 8 vendors are producing implementations
and it is seeing widespread industry interest and adoption. Its current
process and licensing frameworks are concerning to us given the visibility
it has achieved. From our perspective the status quo is increasingly worrisome.

However, I don't know if Bill's stated intent of having
MicroProfile join Jakarta EE is a good topic to be discussing as yet. I
would rather focus everyone's attention and energy on getting the JCP specs
into Jakarta EE and enabling their evolution. We cannot claim to have a
functioning Jakarta EE process for MicroProfile to join until we've accomplished
that. 

On 2018-12-18 10:21 a.m., Kevin Sutter wrote:
Bill,
I have been thinking about this comparison between MicroProfile and Jakarta
EE processes...  But, it's almost like comparing apples and oranges...
 This is mainly due to the protection of the respective brands.  The
MicroProfile processes are truly based on the honor system.  The MicroProfile
branding is housed on a Google drive with public access.  We've documented
the fair use of these logos, but we don't protect them and hand them out
only after completing the TCKs.  So far, this has been working --
especially as a "start up".  MicroProfile's momentum continues
to grow.  Maybe at some point down the road, we'll have to adjust
our thinking and put more controls in place.  But, we're doing these
type of process modifications in a more agile, reactive manner than proactive.

Contrast that with the Jakarta EE effort...  Due to the relationship
between Java EE and Jakarta EE, the Jakarta EE brand is starting off stronger
than the MicroProfile brand.  The protection mindset is already in
place for this brand.  Thus, the Spec process and TCK process and
the Compliance process are all geared for this heavier protection of the
brand.  Maybe we're going overboard with these processes for Jakarta
EE?  I'll just leave that question hanging...

It's already been made clear that the MicroProfile Specifications are not
the same as the Jakarta EE Specifications.  We would have to move
MicroProfile to a Working Group to participate in the Specification process.
 I accept that.  But, that in itself is already making it difficult
to just move over to Jakarta EE.  The MicroProfile community enjoys
the freedom to define our own processes.  And, trying to get Jakarta
EE to match or even allow the same type of release cadence as MicroProfile
is a tall order (7 Platform releases and 17 Component releases in just
over 2 years of existence).

I'm not trying to indicate that we have failed with Jakarta EE processes
(your original question).  Far from it.  I'm just pointing out
that the two groups have had different requirements and goals.  And,
with the post Java EE 8 effort still in limbo with Jakarta EE, we have
to continue pushing the MicroProfile agenda as we have in the past so that
we can continue to compete in this Cloud Native Java world.  

FYI, these are my own personal thoughts and not necessarily the MicroProfile
Community's nor even IBM's...  :-)

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx    Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:        Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        12/17/2018
05:44 PM
Subject:        Re:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process

---

Thanks, Kevin, that was helpful.

Have you taken the next step and formed an opinion on what you think we
should or should not require for the Jakarta EE TCK process?

I hope everyone remembers that one of our main goals here is to create
a specification (including TCK) process that is acceptable to the MicroProfile
community so that MicroProfile becomes part of EE4J and Jakarta EE. 
If what we end up with is (e.g.) too heavyweight for MicroProfile to use,
we will have failed.

Kevin Sutter wrote on 12/17/18 02:20 PM:
Hi,
To follow David's lead, I have created a document for our MicroProfile
TCK Process.  While the Java EE TCK process is at one end of the pendulum
swing, the MicroProfile TCK process might be nearer the other end.  But,
so far, it's been working for us...  Since many of you are probably
not familiar with the process we've been using, I thought I would try documenting
it.  I've given everybody that had access rights to David's document
the same rights on this document.  Comments and Suggestions would
be welcome!  I'm not sure of the agenda for this week's meeting, but
I'd be willing to walk people through it whenever it makes the agenda.
 Thanks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BvdDSScDIhmUCtSJKfpHATUXrqqw2aaJ3c7xI4VWlhg/edit#heading=h.i6oqwqcg54z3

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx 
  Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee





_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee

--
Mike Milinkovich
Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@mmilinkov
+1.613.220.3223 (m)

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee