On
2018-12-20 11:54 a.m., Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
Given that the MP has not planned to adopt
the EFSP, I wonder if Microprofile should move to a new
host? It might be the best solution for all.
I don't find that to be a very constructive comment given
that you haven't even heard what our concerns are. And the
issues that we are seeing are not going to go away if it's
hosted somewhere else. Success comes with greater
responsibilities.
Plus, as Steve pointed out we already have an example of
a MicroProfile spec entering the JCP process. So there is
already an entirely community-led precedent to follow.
Perhaps we should down tools on the email and discuss
this in real time in January.
On
2018-12-19 12:36 p.m., Scott Stark wrote:
We should be looking at
elements of the MicroProfile process that seems to
work and attempt to accommodate the possibility of
MicroProfile using a future EFSP, but I'm not
convinced that it is a requirement, and
potentially not even possible.
Scott, et al,
I guess I was being too subtle in my previous
email on this thread. In our opinion, simply
maintaining the status quo is not an option.
Adoption of the EFSP by MicroProfile is a question
of when, not if.
The existing specification process and licensing
regime for MicroProfile is causing the Eclipse
Foundation serious concerns. We do not feel that
the status quo is an acceptable long term
scenario. This is the result of both the success
in the industry that the specifications are
achieving, and what we have learned as an
institution as we created the EFSP.
Happy to explain more details on a call.
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
_______________________________________________