The proposed transfer of MicroProfile Working Group assets to the Jakarta EE Working Group, while potentially fostering a more comprehensive cloud-native platform, raises significant questions and potential challenges. For community members like myself, the ambiguity around "transferring assets" is a primary concern. What exactly does this encompass? We need clarity on the fate of crucial elements such as source code, documentation, Git repositories, educational materials like the MP Tutorial, and even social media accounts. Without this detail, the poll feels prematurely high-level.
Furthermore, the request to "-1 if you have any red lines or blockers in mind" highlights several critical areas for us.
- 'Red lines' for me include the potential for increased scope and complexity, an elevated cost of membership, and the risk of losing MicroProfile's core values, its emphasis on defining lean interfaces, its agile and iterative development approach, and its strong community-driven ethos.
- As for 'blockers,' discussing issues like the specification namespace feels secondary and even irrelevant if all intellectual property and control are indeed transferred to the JEEWG, granting them full autonomy. True blockers are the unresolved governance challenges and the uncertain path for the continued standardization of cloud-native technologies within this new structure.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:46 AM Jan Westerkamp via microprofile-wg <
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi, as mentioned in the last meetings, to get an complete picture, it
> would be nice to have all binding votes collected in this straw poll.
>
> At this point we have the following results collected:
>
> +1 Payara, Oracle, Microsoft, Garden State JUG (non-binding), Fujitsu,
> Ostfalia (non-binding), iJUG
> -1 Tomitribe
>
> Votes are missing for AJUG, IBM, Primeton, Red Hat and the Committer
> Representative so far - could you please complete the poll by voting here?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
> Am 10.06.25 um 16:59 schrieb Jan Westerkamp:
> > This straw poll is planed to end as of today - if you have not voted
> > yet, please vote asap, if possible.
> >
> > Thank you to the ones who have voted! Here is the interim summary:
> >
> > +1 Payara, Oracle, Microsoft, Garden State JUG (non-binding), Fujitsu,
> > Ostfalia (non-binding), iJUG
> >
> > As far as I can see especially the votes from IBM, Primeton, Red Hat
> > and Tomitribe are still missing, but would be very welcome!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jan
> >
> > Am 03.06.25 um 13:10 schrieb Jan Westerkamp via microprofile-wg:
> >>
> >> This is a non-binding straw poll vote-only thread, detailed below.
> >> Anyone can vote. The working group member reps will be counted
> >> separately for the corresponding ballot projection. Please respond
> >> with +1 (positive), 0 (abstain), or -1 (reject). Any feedback that
> >> you can provide to support your vote will be appreciated. Please
> >> respond by June 10th, 2025.
> >>
> >> Further details: This is an intent to ask for the most important
> >> (simple) question to move on with the merge of the MicroProfile
> >> Working Group (MPWG) into the Jakarta EE Working Group (JEEWG) in
> >> general by moving all the assets (especially the Specs) to the JEEWG.
> >> This poll is preparing a binding vote on the MPWG side for this
> >> question to determine, if there is consensus on this or at least a
> >> majority and then asking the Jakarta EE Steering Committee to accept
> >> that donation. The MPWG could be terminated if all assets transferred
> >> (elsewhere) then in the future.
> >> Please vote +1 if the merge of the MPWG into the JEEWG is your top
> >> most priority and -1 if you have any red lines or blockers in mind
> >> (i.e. requirements for the future MP Spec namespace) that would
> >> prevent you from supporting the merge of the WGs. Especially in the
> >> last case, please add a comment to describe your concerns regarding
> >> this, so we have a chance to work on a consensus. Note, as there is
> >> no guarantee that this donation is accepted in total by the JEEWG
> >> (even when it is expected so) and nothing can enforce them to accept
> >> additional requirements (as for the namespace to use in the future),
> >> so I don't added them here into the poll by intention. This is
> >> intended to find out the degree of consensus in MPWG on the merge in
> >> general and preparing to ask JEEWG for acceptance.
> >>
> >> "RESOLVED. The MicroProfile Working Group transfers all of it's
> >> assets to the Jakarta EE Working Group."
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> microprofile-wg mailing list
> >>
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> >> unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >>
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> microprofile-wg mailing list
>
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg