| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] MicroProfile TCK Process |
And based on earlier discussions, shouldn’t it be more an „Eclipse Specification Process“ (which may have some Special cases for „Jakarta EE“ or what the JCP used to call a „Platform“) that is suitable for MicroProfile, Science, IoT, OS.bea or any other part of the Eclipse ecosystem that has to deal with specification and standardization? So MicroProfile could be one good example for a possible further user, but it should not be considered the only one. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Bill Shannon Mike Milinkovich wrote on 12/18/18 7:53 AM: > 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. > We can certainly defer that discussion until later, but if we don't have that as a goal when we're defining the Jakarta EE specification process, it's unlikely that we'll end up with something that MicroProfile will be willing to join. We don't need to evolve JCP specs in order to have a process that can be used to define MicroProfile specs. Getting the JCP specs into Jakarta EE is largely a legal issue. Creating a process suitable for MicroProfile is largely a process design issue. This group can't solve the legal issue, but it can solve the process design issue. What other process design issues do you think we need to address before considering whether the process we're designing is suitable for MicroProfile? _______________________________________________ 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 |