Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] : Re: *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used for Ratification
Yes, Kevin is wonderful. 
He's monitoring and adding when needed.


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 8:00 PM Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They have fixed the issue Jean-Louis found. I think they're good to go now, and I am fine with adding the 'accepted` label. 
Before the ballot starts, make sure that the PR is updated with the links to these two last additions.

Ivar

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 7:50 PM Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I did approve the TomEE CCR. The only remaining question is the ManageFish CCR.

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:44 PM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just to clarify...  We have the desire for the ballot to go out today.  But, technically, we still have a couple of days grace period.  If we want to wait until we discuss this on Wednesday's Spec Committee call, we could.  If we sent out the ballot on Wednesday, we would still be good with the Marketing hype.  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)



From:        Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonteiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        05/03/2021 12:37
Subject:        Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Re: *URGENT REQUEST* Question about CIs used for Ratification
Sent by:        "jakarta.ee-spec.committee" <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>



My draft email is ready to go.
It's 7pm over here and email needs to go out today.

I'll go for dinner and send the email afterwards with whatever is approved by the committee.

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 7:08 PM Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do see some value in requiring independent implementations as a base criteria for CCRs on the ballot, but I'm not willing to put much effort into verifying that. The purpose of being associated with the ballot should be an expansion of the types of implementations. This gets into the vendor neutrality discussion and whether or not any particular CCR carries additional weight or favor.


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Without a statement that speaks to derivative works not being qualified as being on a ballot, I cannot see that we have a basis for not approving the CCR for the ballot as long as it meets all other criteria.


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:17 AM Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.



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

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://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://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


--

Ivar Grimstad

Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration. 

_______________________________________________
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

Back to the top