| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used for Ratification |
_______________________________________________Hi
I don't think there is anything in our process that is written down and speaks to the sentiment that's written here. If we want to provide some process description enhancements that speak to the issues written below, we can but I would recommend we include this submission.
-- Ed
On 5/3/2021 7:13 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I think you may have read my email as advocating for them to be included. It's definitely not the case.
I suspect that they'll have a hard time finding someone who will approve now. If that turns out to be the case, it basically means none of us thought it was of enough value to include in the release, but no one is the "bad guy" who blocked them. Sort of like in a very large corporation if you need permission, you might not ever find someone who will say no to your idea and engage you in a political fight, but you're also unlikely to find someone to say yes.
On May 3, 2021, at 7:06 AM, Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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!KUqpCSNpg4KTTlXtsMO96wHOnpk4gvRLLqWOGtcUeBv5yjzR8NsOBy2zCUjEu9U$
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