| Tomorrow I plan to start a ballot using Paul’s verbiage. Time is the driver since we have to work on the budget. Just a heads-up for any last-minute feedback.
THIS IS NOT THE BALLOT THREAD, but here is Paul’s proposed verbiage:
RESOLVED, the Steering Committee confirms that the MicroProfile working group will operate without a MicroProfile compatibility program and will not develop and utilize a Compatibility logo for use by compatible implementations of MicroProfile, and instead will allow any implementation that can make bonafide claims of compatibility in accordance with the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process to be listed and linked to as a compatible implementation on its webpage.
This isn’t really a compromise from Red Hat's (and Tomitribe’s) stated position. It’s the same state as before, really. Red Hat maintains its desire for simple, community-centric compatibility approach requiring successfully passing TCKs.
Emily, That is exactly how Jakarta EE works today, and is the essence of
the original proposal.
On 2021-11-03 7:34 p.m., Emily Jiang
via microprofile-wg wrote:
At the moment, we are discussing logo vs. no logo. Is it
possible to compromise the two options?
We can have a compatibility logo but for WG members only.
However, non WG members are allowed to claim compatibility
without the legal right of using the compatibility logo. Being a
member and non-member, the only difference is the logo access.
Thoughts?
-- Mike Milinkovich Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation AISBL Twitter:@mmilinkov
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
_______________________________________________ microprofile-wg mailing list microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
|
