I'm a bit unclear how to cast a vote for this.
First, I will make an assumption that you are asking the members
who would be voting for a working group resolution -- which I
think would be the Steering Committee member representatives -- of
which I (as a representative for Oracle) am a member. It might
also be that this vote is for committer members, a group for
which, I am not a member (though I do seem to be listed as a
'contributing' member for whatever that is worth).
As part of my consideration, I want to remind my fellow members
that in a steering committee resolution ballot, Abstain implies
does not simply no preference. Importantly, Abstain removes that
members vote from any threshold considerations. Therefore, I do
not interpret Abstain as merely "no opinion."
As I have previously stated in live meetings, regardless how
Oracle might consider any one of the proposed name-space
alternatives that have been discussed, it is our top preference
that the two working groups merge and work cooperatively toward a
common goal. It is also my recollection that Eclipse
representatives have previously asserted that one working group
cannot force decisions on another working group. Therefore, any
consideration of an acceptance requirement on Jakarta EE may or
may not actually be enforceable.
Specifically, in regard to the technologies, as was discussed in
live meetings, there may be cases where this could well make sense
(I think an example someone raised was MicroProfile REST Client
and the potential to refactor it with the Jakarta REST
specification and logically combine the classes as made sense to
that revised specification), while in other cases, perhaps this
would be too disruptive.
Oracle is strongly in favor of combining the two working groups.
We believe it is best to follow the same path previously followed:
Contribute what we have to Jakarta EE, then trust that the
combined committer teams will "do the right thing" just as we have
always done.
Therefore, Oracle is -1 (against) a resolution clause prohibiting
(or implying a prohibition on) the Jakarta EE working group from
making a namespace change to any technology contributed from the
MicroProfile working group, currently under
org.eclipse.microprofile.
N.B. This does not imply that Oracle will vote one way or another
on whatever resolution might be ultimately be put forward for
consideration by representatives of the MicroProfile Steering
Committee.
Thank you,
-- Ed
PS if I was incorrect and you are asking for committers to vote,
please let me know.
On 5/12/2025 12:32 PM, John Clingan via
microprofile-wg wrote:
This is a non-binding straw poll vote-only thread. The discussion
thread is here. Please consider this a “red
line” vote, meaning a “-1” vote would also mean a -1 vote on
MicroProfile joining Jakarta EE. Please vote by May 19th, 2025.
"If MicroProfile is to join Jakarta EE, keep the
org.eclipse.microprofile namespace for existing
specifications.”
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!P08lk5RUrfHhALVMR1umcbpcDaltebWkpVDbFImITS8Q9Kk7f87f0Z9YrX_3ae3iW_LhAV2kPspmmAekGsU7L_FvAk8$
