But, on second
thought, I'm wondering if that's sufficient. The Jakarta EE 9 roadmap
that we're trying to get agreement on affects all of the Jakarta EE components,
not just the platform. I know we discussed that the reps on the Platform
should be representing their overall interests (including components) and
not just the Platform. But, is that sufficient?
Jakarta EE Updatecall, there was discussion about how much work it is to Jakarta-ize the
Specifications. And, we talked about the work required to do the
javax->jakarta package rename (spec, api, tck, compatible impls, etc).
Markus presented and discussed these topics on how they relate to
the JAX-RS effort. Markus is not directly represented on the Platform
project -- that is, he doesn't work for or with any of the committers.
He is driving much of the work for the JAX-RS effort. How do
we ensure that voices (like Markus') from all of the Component features
are heard and counted when we make the decisions for Jakarta EE 9?
One idea is to
expand our eligible voting pool to include any committer on any of the
EE4J Specification projects. I have no idea on how easy it would
be discern or filter the various votes, but that seems to be a more equitable
means of voting.
Or, we can fall
back to our original premise to trust the committer reps on the Platform
project to take into account all of the various component's views when
they cast their vote.
--------------------------------------------------- Kevin Sutter STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter