This is a follow-up to today's MicroProfile Community Call. In
addition to the important points stated the email I am responding
to, Microsoft would like to add the following discussion points.
* As part of the process of moving MicroProfile to Jakarta EE, we
would be very supportive of concrete recommendations for improving
the vendor neutrality and openness of the Jakarta EE Working
Group. For example, it is sensible to tentatively open the Jakarta
EE Steering, Marketing, and Specification Committees to all
observers as long as it does not prove to be too disruptive for
decision makers with binding votes. Similarly, we would welcome a
proposal to add one more voting Participant Member seat to the
Steering Committee. Today eligible JUGs may join as Participant
Members for free: https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/jakarta_ee_charter.php.
Indeed, LJC is actually the elected Participant Member in the
Steering Committee today: https://jakarta.ee/committees/steering/.
* It is important to properly evaluate if a small number of
MicroProfile specifications should actually be incorporated as
sub-specs of existing Jakarta EE specifications as opposed to net
new specifications under Jakarta EE outright. For example, it may
actually make the best sense to incorporate Rest Client into
Jakarta REST and JWT Authentication into Jakarta Security. There
is certainly some precedent for this. JPA was a sub-spec of EJB
for a time. Similarly, Interceptors was essentially a sub-spec of
CDI. The incorporated APIs into a sub-spec could still retain the
jakarta.microprofile.* namespace to maintain some reasonable level
of branding continuity.