David,
Thanks for creating the draft.
Since I do not have the write permission to the documents, the followings are my comments:
==
Eclipse Foundation projects will provide technical implementations of API specifications and TCKs.
==
You remove the words “technical implementations of”, but there is no need to delete the word "implementation."
In fact, several Eclipse projects provide implementations.
If you want to get rid of "implementation," change also the subject to "projects under Jakarta EE Working Group purview" instead of "Eclipse Foundation projects."
But I prefer to maintain as it is, because it is just saying the truth, and it does not affect the working group directions.
==
Define and manage vendor neutral criteria for marketing and other services provided to implementations of Jakarta EE
==
We should be more clarify the scope of “implementations”.
There are some kind of implementations.
- Vendor production implementations
- OSS implementations inside Eclipse Foundation
- OSS implementations outside Eclipse Foundation
I am not sure which types you thought as “implementations”, but I don’t think the Working Group need to promote or provide services to vendors’ products.
-Kenji Kazumura
> -----Original Message-----
> From: microprofile-wg <
microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> David Blevins via microprofile-wg
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 6:43 AM
> To:
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx; Microprofile WG discussions
> <
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
microprofile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Blevins <
dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [microprofile-wg] MicroProfile, Jakarta EE, GlassFish/EE4J
>
> Hello communities,
>
> Thank you for the responses. As the discussion has been so far
> overwhelmingly in favor, I've drafted a potential charter update for continued
> discussion:
>
> -
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1wvxSxoAx80XVMfCr9nqyqj4V9-5FNC-5F&d=DwIGaQ&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=8vjMQ300n2S_eOwZyVXzEgAOp7tnHwSpTvf1R7QmcCc&m=5uxsOwNayCZ8Opp9WhJN_nXp8_GxFX7JOUAE4gzsSXs-4wg2_qR9kI23JjPgA88k&s=9OuZZVZvxb8Ly9qRy62uCK_7PxMwsDVtsK7Tq1-GXMQ&e=
> wVSfQp5fgjsgFI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> All thoughts welcome.
>
>
> -David
>
> > On Aug 17, 2025, at 8:35 PM, David Blevins <
dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Moving MicroProfile into the Jakarta EE Working Group and disbanding the
> MicroProfile Working Group requires a super-majority vote. There are
> currently four -1 votes and not enough +1 votes to make this happen.
> Tomitribe, Atlanta JUG and Committer Rep Emerson Castaneda represent 3 of
> those -1 votes.
> >
> > We have a proposal we'd like to discuss with the respective communities that
> would allow the three of us to vote +1, guaranteeing enough votes to move
> MicroProfile into Jakarta EE.
> >
> > The Jakarta EE Working Group (WG) charter currently includes GlassFish
> and other Eclipse implementations within EE4J. The Jakarta EE WG marketing
> is used to promote and award contributions to GlassFish as contributions to
> Jakarta EE. The Jakarta EE WG budget is used to fund infrastructure for
> building GlassFish/EE4J and swag for top GlassFish/EE4J committers. There
> is currently "Jakarta EE Community Mentor" proposal which will use all Jakarta
> EE channels to recognize, promote and award contributions to WG projects,
> including GlassFish/EE4J, excluding other implementations.
> >
> > While the charter does contain "Provide vendor neutral marketing and other
> services to the Jakarta EE ecosystem", in practice marketing and budget are
> provided to GlassFish/EE4J in ways it will not extend to other vendors. The
> justification is that GlassFish/EE4J are part of the Jakarta EE Working Group
> and other implementations are not.
> >
> > Our proposal is to move GlassFish/EE4J into a dedicated Working Group
> where these activities can happen without compromising the vendor neutrality
> goal of Jakarta EE. In short:
> >
> > - Establish an EE4J Working Group and move all implementations out of
> > Jakarta EE
> > - Move Jakarta EE budget line items associated with implementations
> > (Infra $60k, etc) into EE4J Working Group
> > - Bootstrap this from the current year Jakarta EE budget as we did to
> > start the MicroProfile Working Group
> >
> > - Dissolve the MicroProfile Working Group and move all specs to
> > Jakarta EE
> > - Increase Jakarta EE budget $50k to ensure Eclipse does not lose the
> > $50k MicroProfile Working Group budget
> > - Revise Jakarta EE charter to remove references to EE4J (PMC
> > representation on Jakarta EE committees would remain intact)
> > - Add requirement that inclusive vendor-neutral criteria will be
> > established for marketing and other services extended to
> > implementations in the Jakarta EE ecosystem
> >
> > If there was support for moving GlassFish/EE4J to a separate Working Group,
> this commitment to neutrality would be applauded and we would vote +1 on
> moving MicroProfile into Jakarta EE. If all voices come with "why is this so
> bad" and general pushback, then we do not see value in moving MicroProfile to
> a Working Group that does not prioritize neutrality.
> >
> > Would there be support for such a proposal to unite Jakarta EE / MicroProfile
> in a vendor-neutral Working Group and elevate GlassFish/EE4J into a
> dedicated Working Group?
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
