Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Hi Greg,

Not the PMC, but the WGs.

As Mike asked, I'm perfectly willing to assume best of intentions when I find something I don't like. I agree that's a very healthy position to take for all of us.
I'm very willing to accept that there will be growing pains, and we'll all try steer things in the right direction until we've built something truly great.

However, I'm also very wary of bad actors (and by that, I not only mean bad intentions, but also selfish intentions), and prefer to have as many Ts crossed and Is dotted whenever we can, before somebody does try to take advantage (since it's very naive to believe somebody won't do so at one point or another).


My take on this, currently, is to avoid any concentration of powers on any level of Jakarta EE, be it down in the nitty-gritty of any sub-projects' code base, all the way up to the PMC and WGs.

I'd like to nix future issues in the bud. I don't think anybody expected things to get as "draconian" in the JCP when Sun originally set their charters, and such.
That's the problem with having "nobody would do this" holes or permits in a charter. Everybody truly believes nobody involved would ever do such things (and they'll most probably be right) until somebody comes along that would do so, and then everybody is bound hands and feet

Mariano Amar

Senior Consultant

email/hangouts: mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx
skype: marianoamar

AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICO

Esta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx) o por teléfono (+54 11 3249 7503)

This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you're talking about representation on the EE4J top-level PMC then I'm not sure why all the discussion appears to be focussed on the EF. I would imagine that when the projects are actually provisioned (and it looks like only EclipseLink is currently there), that the PMC will expand to include representation from the projects as happens in most other TLPs (e.g Tools and Science).

Yes, the EF has requirements for approvals. It has very structured processes in place for governance and IP. Sure there are some pain points associated with these, but they can also be seen as its strengths. In general (over the 14 years I've been involved), I've only seen things evolve towards helping create an ecosystems that thrives. 

Regards,
Greg 


On Mar 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Mariano Amar <mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Greg,

Being able to do whatever you want at the project level is completely useless if you're trying to build something that is supposed to be part of an umbrella project that has requirements for specs, approval, etc.

You might as well just create your own library/app/framework, and toss Jakarta EE to the wayside.

That's the point we're trying to make here.

Nobody is disputing the project level interaction. That will work the same way any FOSS project has ever worked (for a given idea of "any"). People will contribute, some will report issues, some will find fixes, some will advance the code, some will complete the docs.
That part will be organical enough. No issues there.

Yes, committers will have a lot of power at the project level, that's not being disputed.
But they'll have pretty much none when deciding which projects are actually worth being labeled as "Jakarta EE Ready/Compliant", or when defining what those compliance tests must be, what the specs must be for any tech within Jakarta EE, or even which technologies are wanted as part of Jakarta EE.

If you can have a few hundred people working on a project, organically, only for the big vendors to decide that they don't care for the tech that project covers? There you go, your project might as well be a third-party library that doesn't check any Jakarta specs compliance.

I don't want to throw any stones in any direction, but what would keep big paying companies from doing what Oracle did with Java EE, when the Java EE Guardians had to fight for a year for the community to be told what Oracle wanted out of Java EE (much less for them to continue working on it)?
Yes, now we don't have Oracle as the be-all end-all of the process, but the issue is still there, just a bit more diluted between multiple companies.

Mariano Amar

Senior Consultant

email/hangouts: mariano.amar@wes-it.com
skype: marianoamar

AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICO

Esta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx) o por teléfono (+54 11 3249 7503)

This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Everyone seems to be missing the point that EF *members*, strategic or otherwise, have little influence on a particular project, only on the EF as a whole. It's the committers and contributors who determine the direction of a project and its technical content. If you want to have influence, get active, contribute, and get nominated as a committer. It's free. Any company can pay as much as it likes, but that doesn't guarantee influence at the project level.

Just my 2c worth.

Greg
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


Back to the top