Re: [microprofile-wg] : [STRAW POLL] MicroProfile->Jakarta Namespace, vo

[Jan Westerkamp <jan.westerkamp@xxxxxxx>]

I am with Reza and Ed on this, the current verbiage is misleading, so my vote on behalf of iJUG will be this:

-1 (iJUG)

Why:

First of all, for me a +1 must be interpreted as a red flag vote on joining the WGs too, when not keeping the org.eclipse.microprofile.* namespace.
Casting a 0 would mean no red flag, but also mean "I do not care about the namespace", the working group merge and, by the voting rules, my vote does not count at all.

When following the discussions, I see a majority and changing the namespace to jakarta.*.
Reflecting these majorities, a better verbiage could have been:

"If MicroProfile is to join Jakarta EE, change the org.eclipse.microprofile namespace for existing specifications to jakarta.*.”

But trying to cast vote on three topics at the same time (merging the WGs, red lines, specific namespace selection) will be misleading in any verbiage.

From my observations, there are several separate goals and responsibilities:

1.: Merging the MicroProfile Working Group into Jakarta EE
2.: Defining how to do that, including future namespace selection

While the first need to be decided in MPWG only first, the second will be in collaboration with the JEEWG and final decisions are made in the last.

So, as I suggested in the last MP Technical Call, we need separate votes for separate decisions.

"Merging MicroProfile WG into Jakarta EE  WG?" - with no constraints and red flags. This will be a binding vote of the MPWG Steering Committee at the end, but we could start this with a straw poll (including wider community) upfront, to identify if there are red flags and we can work on finding consensus or at least the best majority.

Having straw polls on these red flags/constraints to find consensus/majority for the first topic and make suggestions to the potential transition process to Jakarta EE WG, like we had on the discussion about the future namespace within Jakarta EE.

To clarify this and as expressed earlier: We as iJUG support the merge of the MPWG into JEEWG without red flags and prefer to change the namespace of moved MP Specs to jakarta.*.

I hope we can improve the necessary future voting on the MP Community Call later today.

Thanks & best,
Jan

Am 13.05.25 um 01:21 schrieb Ed Bratt via microprofile-wg:

I'm a bit unclear how to cast a vote for this. 

First, I will make an assumption that you are asking the members who would be voting for a working group resolution -- which I think would be the Steering Committee member representatives -- of which I (as a representative for Oracle) am a member. It might also be that this vote is for committer members, a group for which, I am not a member (though I do seem to be listed as a 'contributing' member for whatever that is worth).

As part of my consideration, I want to remind my fellow members that in a steering committee resolution ballot, Abstain implies does not simply no preference. Importantly, Abstain removes that members vote from any threshold considerations. Therefore, I do not interpret Abstain as merely "no opinion."

As I have previously stated in live meetings, regardless how Oracle might consider any one of the proposed name-space alternatives that have been discussed, it is our top preference that the two working groups merge and work cooperatively toward a common goal. It is also my recollection that Eclipse representatives have previously asserted that one working group cannot force decisions on another working group. Therefore, any consideration of an acceptance requirement on Jakarta EE may or may not actually be enforceable.

Specifically, in regard to the technologies, as was discussed in live meetings, there may be cases where this could well make sense (I think an example someone raised was MicroProfile REST Client and the potential to refactor it with the Jakarta REST specification and logically combine the classes as made sense to that revised specification), while in other cases, perhaps this would be too disruptive.

Oracle is strongly in favor of combining the two working groups. We believe it is best to follow the same path previously followed: Contribute what we have to Jakarta EE, then trust that the combined committer teams will "do the right thing" just as we have always done.

Therefore, Oracle is -1 (against) a resolution clause prohibiting (or implying a prohibition on) the Jakarta EE working group from making a namespace change to any technology contributed from the MicroProfile working group, currently under org.eclipse.microprofile.

N.B. This does not imply that Oracle will vote one way or another on whatever resolution might be ultimately be put forward for consideration by representatives of the MicroProfile Steering Committee.

Thank you,

-- Ed

PS if I was incorrect and you are asking for committers to vote, please let me know.

On 5/12/2025 12:32 PM, John Clingan via microprofile-wg wrote:

This is a non-binding straw poll vote-only thread. The discussion thread is here.  Please consider this a “red line” vote, meaning a “-1” vote would also mean a -1 vote on MicroProfile joining Jakarta EE. Please vote by May 19th, 2025.

"If MicroProfile is to join Jakarta EE, keep the org.eclipse.microprofile namespace for existing specifications.” 

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!P08lk5RUrfHhALVMR1umcbpcDaltebWkpVDbFImITS8Q9Kk7f87f0Z9YrX_3ae3iW_LhAV2kPspmmAekGsU7L_FvAk8$ 

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg