| Re: [cn4j-alliance] MP apis and "graduation" to Jakarta EE |
Hi Emily,
I just checked and I don't think there is really anything
missing. I do think some of the points could be consolidated a bit
without really losing anything. I would rather one person (you)
did the consolidation so that we can maximize readability for more
casual readers. I deleted my temporary document to eliminate any
possible confusion.
While I do personally rely on Twitter polls heavily, honestly they are less than ideal. Only people on Twitter can participate and results can easily get skewed based on who actually tweets/re-tweets. This is a very important matter in the long term and I think it is best to try to mitigate those polling weaknesses. While this will still not be a scientific poll, hopefully it will be useful enough input into whoever the ultimate decision makers are that way.
Here is what I suggest:
* Make it a SurveyMonkey survey managed by an independent party like the Eclipse Foundation, InfoQ or DZone.
* Publish the analysis somewhere like the Jakarta EE (and/or MicroProfile) blog.
* Help spread word via Jakarta EE/MicroProfile/Eclipse Foundation social media, InfoQ, DZone, JUGs, Jakarta EE Ambassadors, Java Champions, etc.
I would do this with the blessings of the right stakeholders.
Just my two cents of course.
In the end, just doing the analysis in an open and inclusive way
is already a win barring anything else.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual
community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
Thank you Reza for expressing your thoughts constructively! I've merged most of your contents to mine. Please check to see whether I missed anything. Let's continue the discussion on this doc. I've tweeted about this doc. As a consequence, I have restricted the edit access right. You can still comment on it. I plan to run a twitter poll towards the end of next week. Thoughts?
ThanksEmily
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:53 AM Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________Hi Emily/others,
I began making my changes but feared my changes may be a bit too much. So I created a temporary copy here and made my changes there: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnI5bYkFiDeoB5iOXHcKPLt_ngVArP7yV9sEU_Smp4g/edit?usp=sharing. I hope that is understandable.
What I tried to do is make the options clearer to the average user so they may be able to understand the trade-offs a bit more easily. I also tried to be as inclusive and objective as possible (although I think that is difficult for most). If the changes seem OK, it may be best to just merge the two documents (I guess I am mostly looking for Emily to do that).
I hope this helps. I think the analysis as it stands is in good shape.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
On 1/21/2021 1:08 PM, Emily Jiang wrote:
You're right Emily. Thanks for answering, and I agree mostly with that.
There's of course an advantage to not changing the package, but there's obviously also an advantage (IMHO) to do change them.
Kind regards,ArjanThank you Arjan! Yes, I agree none of the options is perfect.
+1 Reza! I have taken a shot of creating this doc. I listed some options there with cons/pros. Everyone should be able to add their opinion with con/pro there.ThanksEmily
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:11 PM Reza Rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_______________________________________________I think it would be helpful to write some of this down in a pro/con format. I think that could help inform further discussion that may not take place here and also help inform all the developers out there. If no one else wants to take that up, I can.
Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
On 1/21/21 11:05 AM, arjan tijms wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:25 PM Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arjan,
Sadly we cannot rewrite the history. Since now we have two package names, there is not much value to change the namespace again. Besides, MP and Jakarta are working together under CN4J towards a full stack of Cloud Native foundation. There should be no superiority comparison between them but the collaboration and acceptance.
You're right Emily. Thanks for answering, and I agree mostly with that.
There's of course an advantage to not changing the package, but there's obviously also an advantage (IMHO) to do change them.
Kind regards,Arjan
_______________________________________________ cn4j-alliance mailing list cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
--
Thanks
Emily
_______________________________________________ cn4j-alliance mailing list cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
--
Thanks
Emily
_______________________________________________ cn4j-alliance mailing list cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance