[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: Ratified Implementations andspecial designation in the eyes of users
|
Werner,
It's not just implemented faster. Implementation teams that work
with the component and platform specification teams contribute
their effort, on the speculation that their work will enable an
evolving specification to be completed. Those implementations are
working on requirements that may come and go before the final
ratification and they agree to work under the schedule pressures
agreed to across the community. I believe they deserve some
mention and _expression_ of gratitude for this contribution.
We have removed the requirement that there be any specific
special compatible implementation, but we still require at least
one, before the Spec. can be completed. Further, this
implementation is evolved with full transparency and inspection by
the community as it evolves. Products that follow are able to use
that implementation (as it is evolving and after it is completed)
to guide their own work. Other implementations, even if they are
also open source, are not obligated to (nor benefiting from if you
view it that way) such public exposure or community scrutiny.
I think these points deserve to be acknowledged in an a clear
fashion. Honestly, I'd like to see vendors believe that it is to
their benefit to be highlighted in this way. We want that level of
participation and I believe we should create an opportunity that
provides incentive for this.
I would be grateful to see more vendor diversity reflected in the
implementations used for ratification. That would be a wonderful
outcome.
-- Ed
On 2/18/2021 8:47 AM, Werner Keil
wrote:
But one implementation is not more specific
anymore since Jakarta EE ;-)
It may have been the case for a decade
earlier but in the last 2 years it should no longer be the
case. If some implementations are faster than others applying
Jakarta EE 8, 9 or 10 while some are seemingly slower, that is
not because the others are "Special",
they just get things done faster.
Werner
Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
If we could wait till we have time to speak
to each other, I'd really appreciate it.
This sort of highlighting one
implementation as more special has affected me negatively
over the last decade and was one of the top 3 things I was
really hoping we could avoid in this new era as Jakarta.
If I get out voted after I feel I've done
my best to be a good communicator, I'll feel significantly
better about the outcome.
Hi,
Are we satisfied with Option 3?
Hi,
I just updated the PR with
the third alternative (proposed by Ed and
backed by Kevin). So far we have the following
options to identify the CI used for
ratification:
* Option 1: Mark with an
asterix in the list
* Option 2: Link in the
release review section
* Option 3: Link separately
with the other resources associated with the
spec
If you like, I _can_ create
one PR for each if it is hard to keep up with
the changes in the PR...
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 Developer Advocate | Eclipse
Foundation
--
Jakarta
EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse
Foundation
_______________________________________________
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Oyu9E9IRyxEpufZM15QMot4TH4xcQA0cSP7BvvO5piyG2HVf5WbmtxViP21HvMU$
