Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, David.  We
have a low bar for being a compatible product.  Someone marks it as
Accepted and they are in as a Compatible Implementation.  

But, the question
here is where to include a GF derivative as a CI for ratification.  Several
teams have put in a ton of effort to ensure their products are Compatible
with 9.1 and to be included on the ballot (GF, OL, WF, and now TomEE).
 Is it fair to these projects to allow a GF derivative (with no added
feature or function) to be included on the ballot?  Yes, they ran
the TCK.  And, they definitely qualify as a Compatible Product.  But,
do they qualify for being included for ratification and the ballot?  That's
the question. 

---------------------------------------------------
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:
       David
Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       05/03/2021
08:10
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used
for Ratification
Sent
by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee"
<jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

I think that criteria for getting on
the ballot should be someone from the platform project (or respective spec
project) has marked the certification request accepted.

As the entity casting the ballot, I definitely
don't want to 1) be solely deciding who does or does not get on the ballot
or 2) be perceived as blocking someone.  If some one feels the CCR
is acceptable they can approve and do not need to convince anyone.  That's
a pretty low bar and if no one is willing to cross it, then that's that.


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

On May 3, 2021, at 5:45 AM, Kevin Sutter
<sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Hi,
Some of you may have noticed that ManagedCat has submitted their ManagedFish
product as a CI for Ratification:

Hi Kevin
Can you also put ManageCat into the ballot as we opened a 9.1 certification
request in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350
Regards.
Gurkan


I have posted my thoughts on this request both to his CCR (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-platform/issues/350)
and the Specifications PR (https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/372).
 I basically indicated that I didn't see a need to list ManagedCat
as a CI for Ratification and include it on the ballot because it's basically
just a commercially supported version of Eclipse Glassfish.  I welcomed
him to submit his product for the Compatible Products page.

Gurkan does not agree and is asking to be included on the ballot.  This
is a unique case that is not directly outlined in the EFSP.  What
are the collective thoughts from the Spec Committee?  We want to get
this ballot out today, so an immediate discussion is required.  Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------
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)
_______________________________________________
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