[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
|
On 3/27/18 9:59 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
If you're talking about representation on the EE4J top-level PMC then
I'm not sure why all the discussion appears to be focussed on the EF. I
would imagine that when the projects are actually provisioned (and it
looks like only EclipseLink is currently there), that the PMC will
expand to include representation from the projects as happens in most
other TLPs (e.g Tools and Science).
EclipseLink was born under the EF back in 2007[1][2], so the change here
was just about changing its top-level project.
according to the latest publicly available status[3] there are few more
projects which has been already provisioned, refer to [3] for complete list.
thanks,
--lukas
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EclipseLink
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopLink#History
[3]: https://www.eclipse.org/ee4j/status.php
Yes, the EF has requirements for approvals. It has very structured
processes in place for governance and IP. Sure there are some pain
points associated with these, but they can also be seen as its
strengths. In general (over the 14 years I've been involved), I've only
seen things evolve towards helping create an ecosystems that thrives.
Regards,
Greg
On Mar 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Mariano Amar <mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Being able to do whatever you want at the project level is completely
useless if you're trying to build something that is supposed to be
part of an umbrella project that has requirements for specs, approval,
etc.
You might as well just create your own library/app/framework, and toss
Jakarta EE to the wayside.
That's the point we're trying to make here.
Nobody is disputing the project level interaction. That will work the
same way any FOSS project has ever worked (for a given idea of "any").
People will contribute, some will report issues, some will find fixes,
some will advance the code, some will complete the docs.
That part will be organical enough. No issues there.
Yes, committers will have a lot of power at the project level, that's
not being disputed.
But they'll have pretty much none when deciding which projects are
actually worth being labeled as "Jakarta EE Ready/Compliant", or when
defining what those compliance tests must be, what the specs must be
for any tech within Jakarta EE, or even which technologies are wanted
as part of Jakarta EE.
If you can have a few hundred people working on a project,
organically, only for the big vendors to decide that they don't care
for the tech that project covers? There you go, your project might as
well be a third-party library that doesn't check any Jakarta specs
compliance.
I don't want to throw any stones in any direction, but what would keep
big paying companies from doing what Oracle did with Java EE, when the
Java EE Guardians had to fight for a year for the community to be told
what Oracle wanted out of Java EE (much less for them to continue
working on it)?
Yes, now we don't have Oracle as the be-all end-all of the process,
but the issue is still there, just a bit more diluted between multiple
companies.
*<http://www.wes-it.com/>*
*Mariano Amar*
/Senior Consultant/
*email/hangouts:*mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:franco.guarnieri@xxxxxxxxxx>
*skype:* marianoamar*
*
www.wes-it.com <http://www.wes-it.com/>
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICO
Esta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también
puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del
destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que
cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la
información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha
recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo
electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx>) o por teléfono
(+54 11 3249 7503)
This communication contains information that is confidential and may
also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If
you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of
this communication or the information it contains is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please
notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx>) or phone
(+54 11 3249 7503)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Everyone seems to be missing the point that EF *members*,
strategic or otherwise, have little influence on a particular
project, only on the EF as a whole. It's the committers and
contributors who determine the direction of a project and its
technical content. If you want to have influence, get active,
contribute, and get nominated as a committer. It's free. Any
company can pay as much as it likes, but that doesn't guarantee
influence at the project level.
Just my 2c worth.
Greg
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community>
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
