Re: [jakarta.ee-community] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE, GlassFish/EE4J

["Kenji Kazumura (Fujitsu)" <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While Jakarta EE releases still rely heavily on the release of GlassFish as a compatible implementation, I have no objection to focusing the Jakarta EE WG on specification projects.
However, I have concerns about creating a new working group for the implementation projects.
Creating a new working group requires a lot of effort. In addition, each vendor incurs costs to run the working group.
On the other hand, if we don't create a working group, I am not clear how to distribute the funding from the Jakarta EE WG to which implementation projects.

-Kenji Kazumura

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jakarta.ee-community <jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On
> Behalf Of Steve Millidge (Payara) via jakarta.ee-community
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:03 AM
> To: Microprofile WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx; microprofile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] [microprofile-wg] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE,
> GlassFish/EE4J
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I support modifying the charter of the Jakarta EE working group to focus only on
> the development and adoption of Jakarta EE specifications and associated
> documents, guides and TCKs. Divesting responsibility for implementation
> projects.
> 
> I am sure implementation projects will do fine outside of the working group and
> without a new working group just like Eclipse Jetty does. So the question of
> whether to create a new working group is a related but somewhat independent
> question.
> 
> From memory EE4J predates the formation of the working group which is why the
> current charter text is intermingled.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> David Blevins via microprofile-wg
> Sent: 18 August 2025 04:36
> To: jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx; Microprofile WG discussions
> <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; microprofile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [microprofile-wg] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE, GlassFish/EE4J
> 
> All,
> 
> Moving MicroProfile into the Jakarta EE Working Group and disbanding the
> MicroProfile Working Group requires a super-majority vote.  There are currently
> four -1 votes and not enough +1 votes to make this happen.  Tomitribe, Atlanta
> JUG and Committer Rep Emerson Castaneda represent 3 of those -1 votes.
> 
> We have a proposal we'd like to discuss with the respective communities that
> would allow the three of us to vote +1, guaranteeing enough votes to move
> MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.
> 
> The Jakarta EE Working Group (WG) charter currently includes GlassFish and
> other Eclipse implementations within EE4J.  The Jakarta EE WG marketing is
> used to promote and award contributions to GlassFish as contributions to Jakarta
> EE.  The Jakarta EE WG budget is used to fund infrastructure for building
> GlassFish/EE4J and swag for top GlassFish/EE4J committers.  There is currently
> "Jakarta EE Community Mentor" proposal which will use all Jakarta EE channels
> to recognize, promote and award contributions to WG projects, including
> GlassFish/EE4J, excluding other implementations.
> 
> While the charter does contain "Provide vendor neutral marketing and other
> services to the Jakarta EE ecosystem", in practice marketing and budget are
> provided to GlassFish/EE4J in ways it will not extend to other vendors.  The
> justification is that GlassFish/EE4J are part of the Jakarta EE Working Group and
> other implementations are not.
> 
> Our proposal is to move GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group where
> these activities can happen without compromising the vendor neutrality goal of
> Jakarta EE.  In short:
> 
> - Establish an EE4J Working Group and move all implementations out of Jakarta
> EE
> - Move Jakarta EE budget line items associated with implementations (Infra $60k,
> etc) into EE4J Working Group
> - Bootstrap this from the current year Jakarta EE budget as we did to start the
> MicroProfile Working Group
> 
> - Dissolve the MicroProfile Working Group and move all specs to Jakarta EE
> - Increase Jakarta EE budget $50k to ensure Eclipse does not lose the $50k
> MicroProfile Working Group budget
> - Revise Jakarta EE charter to remove references to EE4J (PMC representation on
> Jakarta EE committees would remain intact)
> - Add requirement that inclusive vendor-neutral criteria will be established for
> marketing and other services extended to implementations in the Jakarta EE
> ecosystem
> 
> If there was support for moving GlassFish/EE4J to a separate Working Group, this
> commitment to neutrality would be applauded and we would vote +1 on moving
> MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.  If all voices come with "why is this so bad" and
> general pushback, then we do not see value in moving MicroProfile to a Working
> Group that does not prioritize neutrality.
> 
> Would there be support for such a proposal to unite Jakarta EE / MicroProfile in a
> vendor-neutral Working Group and elevate GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated
> Working Group?
> 
> 
> -David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> jakarta.ee-community mailing list
> jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community