This is a follow-up to today's MicroProfile Community Call. In
      addition to the important points stated the email I am responding
      to, Microsoft would like to add the following discussion points.
    * As part of the process of moving MicroProfile to Jakarta EE, we
      would be very supportive of concrete recommendations for improving
      the vendor neutrality and openness of the Jakarta EE Working
      Group. For example, it is sensible to tentatively open the Jakarta
      EE Steering, Marketing, and Specification Committees to all
      observers as long as it does not prove to be too disruptive for
      decision makers with binding votes. Similarly, we would welcome a
      proposal to add one more voting Participant Member seat to the
      Steering Committee. Today eligible JUGs may join as Participant
      Members for free: https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/jakarta_ee_charter.php.
      Indeed, LJC is actually the elected Participant Member in the
      Steering Committee today: https://jakarta.ee/committees/steering/.
    * It is important to properly evaluate if a small number of
      MicroProfile specifications should actually be incorporated as
      sub-specs of existing Jakarta EE specifications as opposed to net
      new specifications under Jakarta EE outright. For example, it may
      actually make the best sense to incorporate Rest Client into
      Jakarta REST and JWT Authentication into Jakarta Security. There
      is certainly some precedent for this. JPA was a sub-spec of EJB
      for a time. Similarly, Interceptors was essentially a sub-spec of
      CDI.  The incorporated APIs into a sub-spec could still retain the
      jakarta.microprofile.* namespace to maintain some reasonable level
      of branding continuity.