Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Fwd: Ratified Implementations and specia

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For those of you
not on the public Spec mailing list (you all should be, but with the new
members coming on board, who knows?)...  This discussion started on
the public mailing list.  There is also a PR, which Ivar is prototyping
various solutions to.  I don't think we've come to a compromise solution
yet, so continued input would be appreciated.

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakarta.ee-spec/msg01438.html
https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/329


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:
       Scott
Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       02/11/2021
09:10
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Fwd: Ratified Implementations and special
designation in the eyes of users
Sent
by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

I replied on the current JSONP issue
that this looks good to me.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:28 AM David
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Full disclosure, I hadn't noticed I sent
this thread to our public list.  Usually the private list is first
in my auto complete.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
310-633-3852

Begin forwarded message:

From: David
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Ratified Implementations and special designation in the eyes of users
Date: February
10, 2021 at 11:12:46 AM PST
To: Jakarta
specification discussions <jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx>

I appreciate there was consensus on today's
spec committee call to mark the implementation used for certification with
a star.  We also commented that if we would alternate the time of
the meeting, we should do more over email, so hopefully my feedback is
welcome despite missing the meeting.

Can we find another way to document the
implementations used for the vote?

I have many concerns about the concept
of RIs.  A big one is the years of difficult experience competing
against an implementation the public sees as special or more official than
yours.  The fundamental tenant of Advance Implementation Neutrality
is to make sure we're not doing that.

If we want to document the implementations
used for the Release Review, can we simply include a link to the relevant
CCRs in the "Release Review" section of the page?  It could
be right under the vote totals after the text "The ballot was run
in the jakarta.ee-spec mailing list.  The CCRs used for the ballot
were: [link1] [link2]"

This would have it documented, but the
list of implementations would look neutral and one would not stand out
over the other.

Thoughts?


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
310-633-3852

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee