Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] TCK process draft vote

[Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would also tend to agree with (y), but that can be hashed out by the steering committee.

> On Jun 26, 2019, at 12:29 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> You don't need to sign a trademark license to *be* compatible, you just
> have to submit a valid certification request.  At that point you can claim
> your product is "compatible with the Jakarta EE specification".
> 
> To be able to use the trademark and the logo, you also need to sign the
> trademark license, at which point you can claim your product is "Jakarta EE
> Compatible" and use the logo to indicate so.
> 
> So there's three types of products:
> 
> 1. Not compatible.
> 2. Compatible but no trademark license.
> 3. Compatible and signed the trademark license.
> 
> There are two web pages that could list products:
> 
> A. The Jakarta EE specification page (for which Wayne showed a prototype).
> B. The Jakarta EE branded products page.
> 
> We expect B to be much more prominent and visible.
> 
> Clearly no page will list #1 products.
> 
> Clearly B will list only #3 products.
> 
> The question to the Steering Committee is what should A list.
> The choices are:
> 
> x - A lists no products (unlike all the other specification pages)
> y - A lists #2 and #3 products
> z - A lists only #3 products
> 
> I strongly believe it should be (y), but I guess it's up to the
> Steering Committee to decide.
> 
>