But one implementation is not more specific anymore since Jakarta EE ;-) It may have been the case for a decade earlier but in the last 2 years it should no longer be the case. If some implementations are faster than others applying Jakarta EE 8, 9 or 10 while some are seemingly slower, that is not because the others are "Special", they just get things done faster. Werner Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10 If we could wait till we have time to speak to each other, I'd really appreciate it. This sort of highlighting one implementation as more special has affected me negatively over the last decade and was one of the top 3 things I was really hoping we could avoid in this new era as Jakarta. If I get out voted after I feel I've done my best to be a good communicator, I'll feel significantly better about the outcome.
Hi, Are we satisfied with Option 3? Hi, I just updated the PR with the third alternative (proposed by Ed and backed by Kevin). So far we have the following options to identify the CI used for ratification: * Option 1: Mark with an asterix in the list * Option 2: Link in the release review section * Option 3: Link separately with the other resources associated with the spec If you like, I _can_ create one PR for each if it is hard to keep up with the changes in the PR... For those of you not on the public Spec mailing list (you all should be, but with the new members coming on board, who knows?)... This discussion started on the public mailing list. There is also a PR, which Ivar is prototyping various solutions to. I don't think we've come to a compromise solution yet, so continued input would be appreciated.
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg01438.html
https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/329
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)
From: Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 02/11/2021 09:10
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Fwd: Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users
Sent by: "jakarta.ee-spec.committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
I replied on the current JSONP issue that this looks good to me.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:28 AM David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Full disclosure, I hadn't noticed I sent this thread to our public list. Usually the private list is first in my auto complete.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
310-633-3852
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users
Date: February 10, 2021 at 11:12:46 AM PST
To: Jakarta specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I appreciate there was consensus on today's spec committee call to mark the implementation used for certification with a star. We also commented that if we would alternate the time of the meeting, we should do more over email, so hopefully my feedback is welcome despite missing the meeting.
Can we find another way to document the implementations used for the vote?
I have many concerns about the concept of RIs. A big one is the years of difficult experience competing against an implementation the public sees as special or more official than yours. The fundamental tenant of Advance Implementation Neutrality is to make sure we're not doing that.
If we want to document the implementations used for the Release Review, can we simply include a link to the relevant CCRs in the "Release Review" section of the page? It could be right under the vote totals after the text "The ballot was run in the jakarta.ee-spec mailing list. The CCRs used for the ballot were: [link1] [link2]"
This would have it documented, but the list of implementations would look neutral and one would not stand out over the other.
Thoughts?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
310-633-3852
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
-- Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation
-- Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation _______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
