the compatible implementation(s) used to ratify or certify the Specification
version is special. The compatible implementations have to contain
and test all of the required *and* optional aspects of the Specification.
Compatible implementations that come after the certification may
or may not have the optional aspects of the Specification. So, to
pretend that all compatible implementations are neutral is not fair. And,
tbh, the ordering of the compatible implementations implies some form of
"superiority" or, at least, non-neutrality. How do we get
around these shortcomings? We discussed this at length, and the approach
proposed with the asterisk (*) seemed like a good compromise.
FWIW, I didn't
even want to list any additional CIs on these Specification pages. I
thought (and a few others on the call agreed) that the Compatible Implementation
listed on these Specifications pages were the ones used to certify with.
Period. Any other listing of additional Compatible Implementations
would be listed on the respective github pages or wiki of the Specification
Project. But, others on the call thought this was confusing to look
in multiple locations for the compatible implementations. So, we
compromised on the above approach. --------------------------------------------------- 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)
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To:
specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date:
[jakarta.ee-spec] Ratified Implementations and special designation in the
eyes of users Sent
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.