DISCUSS: Software Foundation for Microprofile

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

[Mark Little]

Yes and yes :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Blevins]

Also yes and yes.

While I currently own the domain, my preference is all these assets go to a neutral ground.  That neutral ground would have some sort of governance that includes at minimum an annually elected board.

As content moves into JSR form, it would be the foundation that officially is lead in IP terms.

My one hesitation would be if such a foundation was also a competitor in the implementation space.

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

310-633-3852

[Rich Sharples]

+1 for many reasons it will make things easier - co-sponsoring events, AR and PR activities, etc.

I've been part of the node.js foundation for the past year - it's basically a Linux foundation cookie-cutter - would we consider something like that or go it alone ? any other ideas ?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM, David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

Also yes and yes.

While I currently own the domain, my preference is all these assets go to a neutral ground.  That neutral ground would have some sort of governance that includes at minimum an annually elected board.

As content moves into JSR form, it would be the foundation that officially is lead in IP terms.

My one hesitation would be if such a foundation was also a competitor in the implementation space.

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

310-633-3852

On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/5665A964-7B49-47C9-BE1F-1CC696F6DB55%40tomitribe.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Rich Sharples, Red Hat Inc.

919 265 9099

@richsharples

[Mark Little]

I think we should go to an existing foundation rather than try to do this ourselves.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAAYa_t-vqFaOCLe257ZZ05vbCaHprTpwcN8oPZ6EcpQJiBtG-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martijn Verburg]

I agree, setting up foundations is hard and I think there's good choice out there.

--
Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile)

[Werner Keil]

Yes there are a couple out there.

Apache was already mentioned in a different thread

And Linux Foundation also seems to gather various projects from Bitcoin to Node.js And hosting several others like Cloud-related foundations Cloud Foundry, Cloud Native or OCI.

Not sure, how those with their own license (Mozilla, Eclipse, etc.) would treat or welcome a predominantly Apache licensed effort, but I guess there are a few other possibilities.

Cheers,

Werner

[Alasdair Nottingham]

I know Apache was mentioned, but I am concerned it wouldn’t be the right place. What I’m expecting out of this isn’t a single implementation, but a standard that is open to be implemented by multiple groups. So the deliverable isn’t software itself, but guidelines on how to create the software. When I think of Apache I think of the software they produce, so I’d be concerned that it might push towards a single implementation, rather than being designed to foster multiple.

Alasdair

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f9bde3c4-105f-4938-aae2-3d6ceabe76b1%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

I’m not sure it’s so clear cut as that. Whilst I do thing the initial profile work around JAX-RS, CDI etc. is unlikely to produce code other than quickstarts and how-to docs (those should be shared, and that was always the plan), in the future as we start to look at things not within Java EE, e.g., logging or some of the Netflix OSS code, I can certainly see the benefits of a single source of truth for components etc.

Mark.

[Alasdair Nottingham]

Multiple implementations are good for proving standards are workable, and competition is good for driving innovation. So while there are benefits for a single source of truth I view that single source to be the standards rather than the implementation.

Alasdair

[Mark Little]

Not ruling out multiple implementations but a single consolidated effort with a wide range of vendors and community contributors has its benefits too. Speaking on behalf of Red Hat I know that we’d prefer to work with a large community of diverse people towards a single implementation. Now perhaps this group might decide that’s out of scope of MicroProfile and another project entirely, or maybe not. So perhaps we should start there: what do people expect from MicroProfile? Just a set of standards (references to standards), some quickstarts and shared example code (which, BTW, we’d already agreed with IBM would be part of this effort), or something else?

Mark.

[Steve Millidge]

Yes we need somewhere to publish api code and tests that go with the apis under a well respected, standard, open-source license.

[iro...@uk.ibm.com]

I think a foundation makes sense if it increases momentum and participation but if we do that lets make sure we do it with due consideration that keeps all the current participants involved. The advantages of an existing foundation, like Apache or Eclipse, includes the infrastructure they provide (including managing contributor agreements and all that other boring stuff we could do with some more governance around in the future).

- Ian

[Mark Little]

+1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/c5cd5e83-959d-49ff-ac78-0a791564d338%40googlegroups.com.

[Mike Milinkovich]

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:32:53 PM UTC-4, Werner Keil wrote:

Not sure, how those with their own license (Mozilla, Eclipse, etc.) would treat or welcome a predominantly Apache licensed effort, but I guess there are a few other possibilities.

The Eclipse Foundation can and does host projects with licenses other than the EPL. In fact, the reference implementation for JPA is the EclipseLink project which is dual-licensed under the EPL and BSD. We have several projects licensed under the ALv2, including Eclipse Jetty which is dual-licensed EPL and ALv2.

http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/

http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/rt.eclipselink

I would also point out that we are in the midst of a radical change to our IP processes that will significantly reduce the amount of developer overhead required. Historically, that has been the largest complaint from people bringing new projects to Eclipse. In fact, the new process will allow projects to pick the level of due diligence they require on a per-release basis. So, for example, if you had a significant release that was going to be broadly adopted by industry, you could ask for the full analysis to be done on it.

https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/overhauling-ip-management-at-the-eclipse-foundation/

HTH

/mike 

 

[David Blevins]

Not ruling out single implementations on a case-by-case basis, but we definitely do plan to keep investing in the core parts of TomEE; OpenWebBeans for CDI, CXF for JAX-RS, etc.  Speaking with my Tomitribe hat on, fuelling those projects and and offering the industry more choice is what gets us out of bed in the morning.

That said, single implementation is fine on a case-by-case basis.  The industry isn't suffering for not having a second JAXB implementation.  Any specific ideas on what would be consolidated at the implementation level would certainly be welcome.

In terms of the MicroProfile, enabling faster/bolder moves to eventual standardization is extremely attractive.  However that needs to occur.  I recall proposing an "embedded container api" for Java EE some 8 years ago in EE 6.  Antonio proposed it again a few years ago in EE 7.

For those reading "embedded container api" is what all the cool kids are calling "serverless" these days.

It never went anywhere because the comfort level for standardization was not there; not enough of the implementations had worked on it and gained enough experience to confidently say "let's set this in stone, forever".

This is natural for new ideas.  However, since they aren't ready for standardization the conversations around new ideas are naturally shut down to make room for things that are ready for standardization.  This is fine, but it also means there's no forum for those who want to keep the discussion going and push the ideas forward together.

MicroProfile has every potential be that forum and to take that 8 years lost and shrink it down so ideas like that can move forward and reach the point of standardization.  Whatever assets we need to create to innovate together and turn 8 lost years into 1 amazing year, let's do it.  This would seem to be the usual suspects of spec, some tests and some examples, but perhaps we don't need all that.

Being more minimalistic, examples are like tests and spec wrapped into one.  We all can be the "ri".  So that could be enough for our purposes.

Would certainly love to hear other's thoughts. (others==everyone. others!=vendors)

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

Alasdair

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Werner Keil]

I proposed more than 2 profiles on several occasions in the EE EG (but pointed out the term "Embedded" was an unlucky one since it is commonly associated with Embedded devices;-)

The idea of "vertical" profiles also came up if not in the EE EG, then when I proposed a Social JSR with now CDI Spec Lead Antoine which was turned down primarily because those things were felt to "move too fast".

Ironically other attempts and standardization efforts in the Social space like Open Social took an even much slower path (OASIS or when I last heard of it, I think the W3C started some discussion around it we know how long HTML 5 and other work takes there) and Apache has archived projects like Shindig a few months back, too.

Nevertheless a "Social Profile" or potentially under a different name which adds features Agorava (or before it Seam Social) does to a "minimal" or "Micro" profile sounds like a great idea.

On top of those security (OAuth, OpenID-Connect, maybe others) is the most noteworthy, which is also why "Social" may not be a broad enough term. There are other APIs working just like Social Networks (Facebook, Twitter,...) so maybe "API Profile" or you name it.

The effort members of the community put into JSR 375 (also initially David/Tomitribe helped, but it faded quite a bit;-) is an important part.

Werner

[Werner Keil]

"Serverless" I guess Magnet (https://www.magnet.com/) is a very good example.

Founded by BEA's "A", Alfred Chuang (from a part of his share when Oracle purchased BEA I guess;-) it was aiming to create some "Lightweight App Server for the Mobile Space" at least that is how it was presented a few years ago to JavaOne. The focus must have shifted towards mobile messaging and other services, but it's clearly quite serverless in its nature ever since.

[Werner Keil]

>publish api code and tests that go with the apis

Most in this thread or before sounded like "not to standardize" things, so API and tests that go with the APIs for JSON-P, JAX-RS or CDI pretty much are the TCKs for each of these standards.
There are no profiles other than the 2 mentioned, but Oracle and the JCP looks at compatibility: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/overview/compatibility-jsp-136984.html

Implementations, whether it's one or multiple sound OK but I doubt anybody involved wants to compete with testing the compatibility of JSRs (Red Hat could at least for CDI, but keep in mind the other two don't even have a TCK that's Open Source right now)

[Steve Millidge]

I agree with David here, although I support I sort of count as a vendor.

 I think api classes + javadoc as the spec, combined with a bunch of examples/unit tests which use the api should be sufficient.

Examples that are also tests, like the JavaEE 7 samples, make sense for end users of the api and are a great educational aid. If that is all managed with git + github (or some other code hosting repo) so we can manage community contributions to the spec and examples and allows people to raise issues on each api all the better.

Alasdair

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

Sure, as I said that's fine as a start. I still think shared development around some advanced concepts might happen but we can always tackle that on a case by case basis by creating new projects.

Sent from my iPhone

[David Blevins]

Throwing this out there as an option despite the hesitation to starting a foundation.

Certainly "lots of work" is in the cons column.  On that note, there is a list of 300 or so concerned citizens who clearly want to help.  I think we should think about what it might feel like for the community to have a sense of ownership and the strength that can come from it.

-David

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:12 AM, David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

Also yes and yes.

While I currently own the domain, my preference is all these assets go to a neutral ground.  That neutral ground would have some sort of governance that includes at minimum an annually elected board.

As content moves into JSR form, it would be the foundation that officially is lead in IP terms.

My one hesitation would be if such a foundation was also a competitor in the implementation space.

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

310-633-3852

On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Struberg]

That would require tons of legal groundwork. 

* We need legal support. pro bono? Or has anyone any fund?

* How to ensure vendor independence?

* How would the governance model look like?

* How to cope with trademarks and copyright infringement?

There is a TON of things to consider. And it's more than a 1 person full time job.

In my personal view it's not really practicable and we should aim to get backing from an established OSS foundation which already proved to be vendor neutral.

For me this reduces the candidates to

* Linux Foundation

* Eclipse Foundation

* Apache Software Foundation

* probably OASIS?

Anything else?

LieGrue,

strub

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

+1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/7b79ba80-bd68-45c9-8e4e-03e47bda2588%40googlegroups.com.

[Werner Keil]

Yes they were all mentioned before and some provide examples of "Pop-Up Foundations" e.g.
Eclipse Foundation (LocationTech.org, Polar.org)
Linux Foundation (OCI and many others)

[Antonio Goncalves]

> Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle

Have I missed something ? The Java EE leads are still Bill and Linda, right ? https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=366

Other than that, yes (for the foundation), and yes (for soon).

Antonio

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi Antonio,

I mean in a managerial sense :-)

Cheers,
Martijn

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

So I *think* we have broad consensus that we should move to a foundation, but have further discussions to go on what artifacts we host there and which foundation to go for.

If there are no further objections over the next couple of days of moving to a foundation of some description then I'll start a new thread on choosing a foundation (the what we store there discussion can also continue there as it's relevant to the foundation that we pick / build).

Cheers,
Martijn

[Mark Little]

+1

On 17 Aug 2016, at 14:26, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

So I *think* we have broad consensus that we should move to a foundation, but have further discussions to go on what artifacts we host there and which foundation to go for.

If there are no further objections over the next couple of days of moving to a foundation of some description then I'll start a new thread on choosing a foundation (the what we store there discussion can also continue there as it's relevant to the foundation that we pick / build).

Cheers,
Martijn

On 17 August 2016 at 21:22, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Antonio,

I mean in a managerial sense :-)

Cheers,
Martijn

On 17 August 2016 at 20:45, Antonio Goncalves <antonio....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle

Have I missed something ? The Java EE leads are still Bill and Linda, right ? https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=366

Other than that, yes (for the foundation), and yes (for soon).

Antonio

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfileto see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

Antonio Goncalves 
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuATCRMuT1C5%2BKhfrOfbk0-K6pcfEF%2BLRS0HJD%3DJ5BBoxiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Blevins]

+1

On a related note, I notice the OpenAPIs Initiative (formalization of Swagger as a standard) is a Linux Foundation “Collaborative Project”, whatever that means :)

I’d be interested in learning more about that.  They look like us.  https://openapis.org/

-- 

David Blevins

http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com

310-633-3852

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuATCRMuT1C5%2BKhfrOfbk0-K6pcfEF%2BLRS0HJD%3DJ5BBoxiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rich Sharples]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

So I *think* we have broad consensus that we should move to a foundation, but have further discussions to go on what artifacts we host there and which foundation to go for.

A foundation and a separate legal entity also allows us to do things independent of any one vendor (the problem we're running from) - trademarks, governance, policy, charter, liability insurance, AR and PR and should it get big enough - the ability to hire full-time people.

As I mentioned before - my involvement with the node.js foundation (a Linux Foundation Collab Project) has been very positive; happy to make some intros. should that be needed at some point.

I think we need to start documenting our shopping list - things we expect from a foundation - I think that will help us ultimately decide how to go about starting it.

Otherwise a big +1 from me.

- Rich

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuATCRMuT1C5%2BKhfrOfbk0-K6pcfEF%2BLRS0HJD%3DJ5BBoxiw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[John Clingan]

Good thread. I was thinking the same thing about documenting this thread. I'll start a google doc, post to this list, and add a link from microprofile.io. Not quite sure how I'll do the security part, but anyone view, anyone comment, and a few editors (assuming I can do that).

[Werner Keil]

I thought so, too, but Anil could be who Linda and Bill are reporting to, or some level between them and Larry Ellison...

Werner

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 2:46:10 PM UTC+2, Antonio Goncalves wrote:

> Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle

Have I missed something ? The Java EE leads are still Bill and Linda, right ? https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=366

Other than that, yes (for the foundation), and yes (for soon).

Antonio

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Werner Keil]

Seems a bit smaller, but Kai from OpenHAB (it won a Duke's Choice Award 3 years ago, Kai was also in the Eclipse booth at JavaOne last year) and a few others created OpenHAB Foundation on top of Eclipse SmartHome: http://www.openhabfoundation.org/

I'm sure Mike and others at Eclipse know, but it does not make the impression that they used Eclipse infrastructure.
For those working at Deutsche Telekom like Kai they may have other ways to get their Foundation online;-)

If he's coming to JavaOne again, I'm sure those interested can talk to him about his Foundation. It certainly seems to have a small footprint, not just because it's targeting Embedded devices like Raspberry Pi;-)

Werner

Cheers,
Martijn

Cheers,
Martijn

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuASS8Z%2BahJXgAYCYMSQ2A12LUM%2BKjz_%3DwO5yBeVyR69K5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAP7YuATCRMuT1C5%2BKhfrOfbk0-K6pcfEF%2BLRS0HJD%3DJ5BBoxiw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Millidge]

I know a good lawyer in the UK who understands open-source and can quite quickly setup a UK basedFoundation as a Company Limited by Guarantee or a US not for profit. Setting up the legal entity would be quick setting up the constitution and membership rules would depend on how complex we as a group make it. He has setup other, pretty well known, open-source foundations in the past.

Steve

[John Clingan]

I have started a google doc that tries to summarize the current discussion and also put some context around it. We should continue the broader discussion here, but comments that relate to the accurate reflection of this discussion are welcome. It's a *draft* because, as a reflection of this discussion, it is work in progress. Please excuse the formatting for now.

[Mark Little]

Can we try to move this forward? My preferences are Eclipse and Apache, in that order.

Mark.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0184f55b-7f91-4e78-8ab9-900533cc8981%40googlegroups.com.

[Martijn Verburg]

+1 - we have the same preference

Cheers,
Martijn

On 2 September 2016 at 11:22, Mark Little <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we try to move this forward? My preferences are Eclipse and Apache, in that order.

Mark.

On 20 Aug 2016, at 01:17, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

I have started a google doc that tries to summarize the current discussion and also put some context around it. We should continue the broader discussion here, but comments that relate to the accurate reflection of this discussion are welcome. It's a *draft* because, as a reflection of this discussion, it is work in progress. Please excuse the formatting for now.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-7, Martijn Verburg wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0184f55b-7f91-4e78-8ab9-900533cc8981%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/2CB43271-06EE-44D0-BCEF-8C69176CB1DB%40gmail.com.

[Werner Keil]

Since Mike explained that Apache License should work fine under an Eclipse "franchise" foundation, I could see some synergies on the IoT front, too ;-)
https://www.polarsys.org/ would be a good example. Not sure, how much freedom Apache gives to projects underneath (in fact, Linux Foundation does a lot together, so it may even be a better place to look at) but e.g. theGroovy project enjoys a lot of freedom, e.g. downloads on Bintray/JCenter (at least those are advertised, not apache.org/dist) so I guess it might work at Apache.

Werner

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 11:04:30 AM UTC+2, Martijn Verburg wrote:

+1 - we have the same preference

Cheers,
Martijn

On 2 September 2016 at 11:22, Mark Little <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we try to move this forward? My preferences are Eclipse and Apache, in that order.

Mark.

On 20 Aug 2016, at 01:17, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

I have started a google doc that tries to summarize the current discussion and also put some context around it. We should continue the broader discussion here, but comments that relate to the accurate reflection of this discussion are welcome. It's a *draft* because, as a reflection of this discussion, it is work in progress. Please excuse the formatting for now.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-7, Martijn Verburg wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0184f55b-7f91-4e78-8ab9-900533cc8981%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

I was wondering if this might be something we could announce at JavaOne if we could get agreement :) ?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/440cfb17-191a-4d2d-bc56-5ff2cd6509f7%40googlegroups.com.

[Werner Keil]

Since Eclipse has a booth at JavaOne despite not being able to vote lately, we can hope to see Mike, Wayne or both at the EC F2F.
So if a Polarsys like use of Eclipse was the best option, that could be clarified and be safe to announce at JavaOne (e.g. your "Serverless" talk, though I must admit it has one of the worst timeslots regarding "Microservice" with at least 3 or 4 other talks on exactly the same subject from the likes of IBM and others;-)

[Werner Keil]

Another example for a major project (in fact it was even a "fallout" from the Oracle-Sun takeover;-) with its own separate domain and site under Apache Foundation does not exactly make that option shine: http://www.channelbiz.co.uk/2016/09/06/microsoft-office-rival-openoffice-retired/?referrer=related-post-box&utm_source=www.techweekeurope.co.uk&utm_medium=post&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=related-post-box

Still not sure, what arguments speak against Linux Foundation hosting dozens like CloudFoundry, Open Containers, etc., but if those who have a lot to do with Linux feel it's not so good, they probably know why.

Regards,
Werner

[John Clingan]

I have worked within the Eclipse community (EclipseLink) and found it to be a good experience, but I was not a core contributor. I have never worked within the Apache community so I have no comment.

I guess the question comes down to:

• Specification vs code. Both foundations can handle code. Can the foundation handle the concept of specification? What if we build code *and* the specification in the foundation. The foundation owns the code. Who owns the spec, for example, if we want to move it from the foundation to the JCP or some other standards organization? I don't think we have settled on "the API is the spec" versus the creation of a spec encouraging multiple implementations. It may, in fact, be either approach depending on the microprofile sub-project.
  
  
• Toolchain. I have no comment here, I'll leave it to the coders. I know that the Eclipse Foundation has been flexible here. Again, I have no experience working with the Apache Foundation.
  
  
• Other? What about cncf.io? Anyone have experience with CNCF? It's a Linux Foundation project and Kubernetes and Prometheus are already there. Interesting presentations: Standards and the Next Generation of Cloud, Introduction to CNCF. (this bullet is from a quick perusal, btw). IBM and Red Hat are already members. (Both are members of the Eclipse Foundation as well).

[Alasdair Nottingham]

John,

You have hit the nail on the head in my view on my concern about foundation. I think both eclipse and Apache work well for code, but as a place to discuss standards they seem less obvious. That said I see eclipse as more likely to adapt to the spec process than Apache, not because the latter is bad, but because my experience leads me to believe the Apache Members are more likely to be driven towards the concrete of an implementation. 

I don't personally have experience with CNCF.io other than a conversation with another IBMer who suggested it as a possible home for something else that didn't happen. I suspect they would be happy to take this on, but they don't have the same name recognition as eclipse or Apache. 

So CNCF seems best place for specs, but lacks name recognition. 

Eclipse has good name recognition, people seem keen on it, but not a current home for specs.

Apache probably has the best brand name for this, but isn't a current home for specs and I fear would find this hardest to accept. 

I'm happy to be corrected if my perceptions are outdated. Overall and personally I think I'd prefer something like cncf/Linux foundation, but if the view is for Apache/eclipse on balance I'd go eclipse. 

Another thing is how quickly we want to do the move, I suspect Eclipse/Apache would be faster than the others. Going to stop brain dumping now. 

Alasdair Nottingham

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/19ba74f1-b1b2-4aec-ba98-1a3caf211a73%40googlegroups.com.

[Werner Keil]

CNCF.io is hosted under Linux Foundation, so if Microprofile.io aims to gather projects of its own, it probably better use Linux Foundation like CNCF does, not itself.

Another Linux Foundation subsidiary, Open Container Initiative does quite obviously try to set standards, mostly some Docker established, but it's not the only company involved:

https://www.opencontainers.org/news/news/2016/04/open-container-initiative-launches-container-image-format-spec

Werner

[Wayne Beaton]

The Eclipse Foundation can host specs.

Neither the Eclipse Foundation nor the Apache Foundation take ownership of code or anything. Intellectual property contributions remain the property of the author (or, more likely, their employer).

Both the Eclipse Foundation and Apache Foundation will take on ownership of the project name trademark. As part of that ownership, there are certain obligations regarding the use of the name which need to be maintained. Maintenance of a trademark isn't free. e.g. you'll notice that we consistently refer to "Eclipse Che" and Apache consistently refers to "Apache Hadoop".

Trademark rules may impact any eventual movement of a specification to the JCP. e.g. you might need to pick a different name for the specification.

The Eclipse Foundation provides all sorts of services and tools, but you can pretty much do what you want. We do require that project teams use a source repository provided by us (including GitHub), host a website on our infrastructure, etc. The primary restriction with regard to tools is that the level playing field must be maintained. A project team cannot use tools that are accessible only to some subset of the user community. We also have the Eclipse Development Process that defines how projects are structured, the release process, reviews, etc.

HTH,

Wayne

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/19ba74f1-b1b2-4aec-ba98-1a3caf211a73%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation

[Mark Little]

There are lots of foundations out there. I think it’s important we go to one that people would expect to see something related to Java. CNCF doesn’t seem right. Linux foundation similarly.

Mark.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/E0484BA9-C799-4F2C-AF13-A30F0675B204%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

Mark Little

mli...@redhat.com

JBoss, by Red Hat

Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, 6700 Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Co. Cork.
Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, No.304873
Directors:Michael Cunningham (USA), Vicky Wiseman (USA), Michael O'Neill, Keith Phelan, Matt Parson (USA)

[Steve Millidge]

My impression is that Eclipse governance is organised around Strategic Members where there is a minimum chunky fee to join. OTOH I have never interacted with Eclipse or studied the bylaws in detail so don't know if this makes any practical difference or not to individual projects. I can see that it makes it better funded.

[Werner Keil]

Another answer (it seems after his post was released from moderation he deleted it after all) spoke of "JSR X" for Microprofile, so "related to Java" also sounds like a foundation that has a history of implementing JSRs.
Of course not sure, if there would ever be a "Microprofile JSR" though, it's more like the idea some of us in the "Java EE Umbrella JSR" had for years but the timing seemed odd or premature, like we also saw other JSRs that took several attempts before the industry and Java community were ready for them.

With that regard, both Apache and Eclipse did that in the past. More recently (e.g. JSON-B) it looks like Eclipse has a few more.

While I am only an Individual Member/Committer at Eclipse and Committer/PMC Member at Apache, I know, in addition to being at least a corporate member, Eclipse normally has separate membership for "Working Groups" (e.g. Polarsys also has its own WG) so most members who wish to join such a project/WG have to pay 2 fees. That as Steve mentioned makes it better funded. I am not aware, that e.g. Individuals could even formally join a WG/subproject without being at least a Solutions Member (see https://eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/membershipTypes.php)
I follow the Science TLP for some time now, so taking that as example http://science.eclipse.org/members-list. The "steering committee" sounds like what was mentioned as "core team" here earlier. I can't say if any committer member of Eclipse is able to commit to the actual projects, but I know, all "Participating Members" have to be at least Solutions Members to join.

Werner

[Kevin Sutter]

Why are messages getting moderated and deleted?  I posted a reply last night and it looks like it was deleted.  And, now this morning, I see a heading that indicates three messages have been deleted...  And, Werner's not below seems to indicate that other messages have been moderated and/or deleted...  What's up?

Kevin

[Rich Sharples]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <alasdair....@gmail.com> wrote:

John,

You have hit the nail on the head in my view on my concern about foundation. I think both eclipse and Apache work well for code, but as a place to discuss standards they seem less obvious. That said I see eclipse as more likely to adapt to the spec process than Apache, not because the latter is bad, but because my experience leads me to believe the Apache Members are more likely to be driven towards the concrete of an implementation. 

I don't personally have experience with CNCF.io other than a conversation with another IBMer who suggested it as a possible home for something else that didn't happen. I suspect they would be happy to take this on, but they don't have the same name recognition as eclipse or Apache. 

CNCF is a linux foundation project btw. I actually think it would be a good association to make.

Happy to share my experiences with the Node.js Foundation (another Linux Foundation project) which was create under very similar circumstances.

 

So CNCF seems best place for specs, but lacks name recognition. 

Eclipse has good name recognition, people seem keen on it, but not a current home for specs.

Apache probably has the best brand name for this, but isn't a current home for specs and I fear would find this hardest to accept. 

I'm happy to be corrected if my perceptions are outdated. Overall and personally I think I'd prefer something like cncf/Linux foundation, but if the view is for Apache/eclipse on balance I'd go eclipse. 

Another thing is how quickly we want to do the move, I suspect Eclipse/Apache would be faster than the others. Going to stop brain dumping now. 

Alasdair Nottingham

On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:34 PM, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

I have worked within the Eclipse community (EclipseLink) and found it to be a good experience, but I was not a core contributor. I have never worked within the Apache community so I have no comment.

I guess the question comes down to:

• Specification vs code. Both foundations can handle code. Can the foundation handle the concept of specification? What if we build code *and* the specification in the foundation. The foundation owns the code. Who owns the spec, for example, if we want to move it from the foundation to the JCP or some other standards organization? I don't think we have settled on "the API is the spec" versus the creation of a spec encouraging multiple implementations. It may, in fact, be either approach depending on the microprofile sub-project.
  
  
• Toolchain. I have no comment here, I'll leave it to the coders. I know that the Eclipse Foundation has been flexible here. Again, I have no experience working with the Apache Foundation.
  
  
• Other? What about cncf.io? Anyone have experience with CNCF? It's a Linux Foundation project and Kubernetes and Prometheus are already there. Interesting presentations: Standards and the Next Generation of Cloud, Introduction to CNCF. (this bullet is from a quick perusal, btw). IBM and Red Hat are already members. (Both are members of the Eclipse Foundation as well).

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:57:47 AM UTC-7, Werner Keil wrote:

Another example for a major project (in fact it was even a "fallout" from the Oracle-Sun takeover;-) with its own separate domain and site under Apache Foundation does not exactly make that option shine: http://www.channelbiz.co.uk/2016/09/06/microsoft-office-rival-openoffice-retired/?referrer=related-post-box&utm_source=www.techweekeurope.co.uk&utm_medium=post&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=related-post-box

Still not sure, what arguments speak against Linux Foundation hosting dozens like CloudFoundry, Open Containers, etc., but if those who have a lot to do with Linux feel it's not so good, they probably know why.

Regards,
Werner

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/19ba74f1-b1b2-4aec-ba98-1a3caf211a73%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/E0484BA9-C799-4F2C-AF13-A30F0675B204%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martijn Verburg]

I've spoken to Alexis (Chairs the CNCF) and he mentioned they're pretty strict on the Cloud Native piece.  I think they'd see MP (in its current form) being too hybrid (on-prem and cloud)

Cheers,
Martijn

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAAYa_t89g9NkxB3T3Hkysno7PN_Mz5NLEOPoVVmBcri5gYLd4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rich Sharples]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Martijn Verburg <martijn...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've spoken to Alexis (Chairs the CNCF) and he mentioned they're pretty strict on the Cloud Native piece.  I think they'd see MP (in its current form) being too hybrid (on-prem and cloud)

Ok - good to know - I guess we can strike one off the list ;)

[John Clingan]

Well, I’d personally push back on that characterization of cloud. Private clouds matter as much as public clouds.  Getting a bit product-y here, but OpenShift runs on public clouds and enables customers to build private clouds. The MicroProfile work, from a Red Hat perspective, is to be optimized platforms like OpenShift in mind. I can’t tell you the number of customers that want to build cloud-native apps on private clouds. Heck, Kubernetes (a CNCF project) runs private clouds (via OpenShift). So, I completely disagree with the characterization of MicroProfile and that narrowly defined view of cloud.

[Mark Little]

I'm coming at this from a Java developer perspective. Having worked in web services standards, DCE, CORBA, and a host of others, end user perspectives are important and I just don't associate Java with any foundation other than either Eclipse or Apache.

If we choose the wrong one then it'll need sidelined simply because no one will know it exists.

Mark.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/9912BF45-F61E-4365-A0B9-6F29743FA47B%40redhat.com.

[Kevin Sutter]

+1    Going with either Eclipse or Apache will provide the best Java user and developer impression.

Cheers,
Martijn

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/19ba74f1-b1b2-4aec-ba98-1a3caf211a73%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/E0484BA9-C799-4F2C-AF13-A30F0675B204%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Rich Sharples, Red Hat Inc.

919 265 9099

@richsharples

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAAYa_t89g9NkxB3T3Hkysno7PN_Mz5NLEOPoVVmBcri5gYLd4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Rich Sharples, Red Hat Inc.

919 265 9099

@richsharples

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

[Werner Keil]

No idea who deleted them. I saw one earlier in the "awaiting moderation" header and it seems everyone who is subscribed can go there. I actually told the list this message seems OK to me, but maybe another user deleted it at the same time or the original author did? There was only 1 in moderation, no clue where the other 2 went, I never saw them in moderation. Unless it's changed, if you are missing a message, best check the moderation space, it seems (unless something is really plain spam) you can verify your own messages, at least it felt like that.

Werner

[Wayne Beaton]

Ownership of the project and the name would be transferred to the foundation. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm pretty sure that this (or something like this) is true for all foundations. By having the foundation own the project and hold the name on behalf of the community, you improve the chances of the project remaining open and mitigate the risk of any single organization taking over the project (the foundation holds the keys). Trademarks can only be held by a legal entity (projects are not legal entities, but a foundation is).

Trademarks need to be protected if your hold on them is to remain valid. This is part of the function of the foundation. Organizations set up rules for using their trademarks. Some of the rules seem a bit silly to me ("Eclipse Java IDE" is actually a violation of Oracle's trademark, but "Eclipse IDE for Java" is not), but that's apparently how trademark law works.

Trademarks are a bit of a dark art. I'm not completely sure that "MicroProfile" is something that can be trademarked (it feels generic). That's something we'll have to leave to the lawyers. One workaround is to use a different name for the project "Basselope: The MicroProfile Project" (I'm hoping that the  Bloom County reference gives me street cred).

Wayne

On 07/09/16 10:45 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:

Thank you, Wayne, for the perspectives on the Eclipse foundation.  It's good to know that hosting specs is a possibility.

The name thing might be a hiccup...  So, you are saying that if we would create the Eclipse MicroProfile project, then this is now "owned" by Eclipse and we could not use MicroProfile if or when we would submit the technology to the JCP?  Maybe this is just another example of where the JCP needs to loosen up and accept input from outside organizations.  For example, Java EE 8 could contain the Eclipse MicroProfile specification...  I know, I'm dreaming...

Kevin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/ac6983da-2272-42b2-898b-4247ae39d693%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Werner Keil]

I guess that makes sense.
Hard to tell what QNF is really about. The only thing Prometeus and Kubernetes really have in common is, that like Docker itself they're mostly written in Go. Other than that they more or less sit on a similar "layer". Hard to strictly speak OSI, but "Java Containers" even if you just use a "Fat JAR" tend to deal with the "green" top layers of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_OSI_layers while the whole Docker/Cloud world sits below that. So the only thing I can sense about QNF is they want to focus on the Infrastructure or "OS Container" parts below.

Werner

[Wayne Beaton]

Anybody can participate in an Eclipse project, regardless of membership status. Advancement within a project (commit rights, project leadership, etc.) is all based exclusively on meritocracy [0]. Employment with a member company does not guarantee an individual status on a project (we make even Eclipse Foundation employees follow the same merit-building process for becoming a committer as everybody else).

When an organization brings a project to the Eclipse Foundation, we do ask them to become members [1]. There are multiple levels of membership; organizations can decide what level they want to become based on how involved they want to be (Stategic Members, for example, get a seat on our board of directors).

Some members also choose to participate in our working groups [2] (which focus on industry-specific collaboration). For some working groups, there is a fee for participating (this varies by working group).

Based on the names that I've seen in these discussions, I'm pretty sure that we already have a handful of Eclipse Foundation members involved in this community.

HTH,

Wayne

[0] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#elections

[1] https://www.eclipse.org/membership/

[2] https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/

On 08/09/16 05:51 AM, Steve Millidge wrote:

My impression is that Eclipse governance is organised around Strategic Members where there is a minimum chunky fee to join. OTOH I have never interacted with Eclipse or studied the bylaws in detail so don't know if this makes any practical difference or not to individual projects. I can see that it makes it better funded.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/1412b17c-9431-4402-b18a-44b3f20a44a1%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Rich Sharples]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne....@eclipse.org> wrote:

Ownership of the project and the name would be transferred to the foundation. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm pretty sure that this (or something like this) is true for all foundations. By having the foundation own the project and hold the name on behalf of the community, you improve the chances of the project remaining open and mitigate the risk of any single organization taking over the project (the foundation holds the keys). Trademarks can only be held by a legal entity (projects are not legal entities, but a foundation is).

Trademarks need to be protected if your hold on them is to remain valid. This is part of the function of the foundation. Organizations set up rules for using their trademarks. Some of the rules seem a bit silly to me ("Eclipse Java IDE" is actually a violation of Oracle's trademark, but "Eclipse IDE for Java" is not), but that's apparently how trademark law works.

The former is co-opting someone else's trademark - a clear violation; the latter is simply making an association - in this case - our thing is designed to work with someone else's thing - it's simply stating a fact.

But yeh - Trademark Law and Law in general is steeped in nuances and you should only take legal advice from an actual lawyer ;)

Which is one thing that most established foundations will provide - legal assistance, advice, protection for trademarks, licenses, export control, etc.

 

Trademarks are a bit of a dark art. I'm not completely sure that "MicroProfile" is something that can be trademarked (it feels generic). That's something we'll have to leave to the lawyers. One workaround is to use a different name for the project "Basselope: The MicroProfile Project" (I'm hoping that the  Bloom County reference gives me street cred).

Prior to agreeing on the name MicroProfile I did run it through TESS and Google - didn't hit any obvious clashes. We'd clearly have an issue with "Micro Profile" - that is too general.

TESS : http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=search&state=4804:j1dwtk.1.1

Typically - you only actually file for a Trademark once you believe you have something valuable enough to warrant the time and expense - that's likely a discussion for the future wrt MicroProfile - for now using it clearly and consistently should be enough to help us establish it.

I should add - I'm not a lawyer.

- Rich

 

Wayne

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/ac6983da-2272-42b2-898b-4247ae39d693%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/b955a3e5-5c3d-22fe-bfb9-2d36c0ac68a7%40eclipse.org.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Wayne Beaton]

I believe that my tone makes this obvious, but I probably should have stated that I am not a lawyer.

But, through the Eclipse Foundation, I do have access to some very good lawyers who are quite knowledgeable in the ways of open source and subtleties of trademark law.

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAAYa_t9mVDCDHpX2ELqgS-GYZxGQ%2BpzpWbyhgjqrziVar2cTdg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Clingan]

I'm not sure why posts are being moderated or deleted. I think I may tighten restrictions a bit if this keeps being a problem. I don't want to be a dictator, though. "MicroProfile Dictator" on my LinkedIn profile. Hmmmm .... :-)

[Martijn Verburg]

Benevolent Dictator remember ;-)

Cheers,
Martijn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/6bf0d9c1-1076-4fcc-a3c1-eaad246b0848%40googlegroups.com.

[Andy Gumbrecht]

Also had a message deleted automatically today, hence a few double posts ...seems to be an occasional Groups issue?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/d209b486-b104-45de-a27d-02cf5e18a17c%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
  Andy Gumbrecht
  https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
  http://www.tomitribe.com

[Werner Keil]

I guess that helps those who may be Individuals (either in the JCP, Eclipse or Apache) and considering to help with some of these projects.

If e.g. a Steering Committee/Core Team or whatever it could be called required Solutions Membership, I could probably personally understand, but it may turn some people away if they had to join as Solutions or other commercial members if they are freelancers, JUG Members or other kinds of individuals. If it's up to a "Working Group" (for Microprofile similar to Polarsys, Science or others) what membership levels it is open to, I guess those looking forward to formalize this will know, how they would like to handle it for Microprofile.

Thanks,

Werner

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

So shall we formally approach the Eclipse Foundation and see what the steps to apply would look like?  I'm sure they have a document that we can discuss here WRT to the Trademarks, governance etc.

Cheers,

Martijn

[Ken Finnigan]

+1

Ken

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f9cee9fb-2b3a-405c-a0d7-7f394209cfe7%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

Yup

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f9cee9fb-2b3a-405c-a0d7-7f394209cfe7%40googlegroups.com.

[Antonio Goncalves]

+1

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f9cee9fb-2b3a-405c-a0d7-7f394209cfe7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/FAE99249-8475-49BD-B843-B7E2562E7E07%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

[Martijn Verburg]

OK, I'll schedule a call with Mike M tomorrow and I'm sure he'll give us the low down.  We can then discuss (in person for several of you at J1) the pros and cons of that and either move into Eclipse or evaluate the next one in line (probably Apache buy popular choice)

Cheers,
Martijn

On 14 September 2016 at 15:03, Rich Sharples <rsha...@redhat.com> wrote:

+1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CA%2BZZq9-%3DcznG4gNy7Wa4GtN%3DgHpQSy2yFXq8D8kVoZEQQNPqBA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Wayne Beaton]

The Eclipse Project Handbook has some help for creating a new open source project at the Eclipse Foundation.

https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#starting

Please let me know (either through this channel or via direct email) if you have any questions or concerns.

Wayne
wa...@eclipse.org

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/f9cee9fb-2b3a-405c-a0d7-7f394209cfe7%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rich Sharples]

+1

On Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Antonio Goncalves <antonio....@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CA%2BZZq9-%3DcznG4gNy7Wa4GtN%3DgHpQSy2yFXq8D8kVoZEQQNPqBA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Heiko Braun]

+1

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

I've had a good scan through the document Wayne posted and it's all very clear on what's expected.

I've started a Google Doc raising things we need to watch out for and questions for Wayne :-).

Please do read through the Eclipse document - https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#starting and add any extra concerns or questions on the Google Doc 

@Wayne - assuming my Q's a clear, are you able to answer them in the doc?

Cheers,
Martijn

On 14 September 2016 at 15:03, Rich Sharples <rsha...@redhat.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAAYa_t_PXQwBTd%2BdJKmctSY1OX%3DBWskNuOZbwEqxGGDQ1KwMKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martijn Verburg]

I'm not at J1 sadly, but hopefully the others will come and say hi :-)

Cheers,
Martijn

On 14 September 2016 at 21:04, Wayne Beaton <wa...@eclipse.org> wrote:

@Wayne - assuming my Q's a clear, are you able to answer them in the doc?

I can, but you may have to poke me.

I'll be at JavaOne next week. You can also stop by the Eclipse Foundation booth.

Wayne

[Wayne Beaton]

@Wayne - assuming my Q's a clear, are you able to answer them in the doc?

I can, but you may have to poke me.

I'll be at JavaOne next week. You can also stop by the Eclipse Foundation booth.

Wayne

On 14/09/16 03:32 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:

[Mike Milinkovich]

There are a couple of examples of where specifications have been done at the Eclipse Foundation. None recent, but I am confident that it could be done.

The biggest question is what license you would want to use for the specification document. If it is the same license as the implementation (e.g. ALv2), then I see no issues. Coming up with some new or different specification license would require more conversation.

[Martijn Verburg]

I'd say the consensus so far is Apache License v2 for any specs we product as well.  But that may depend on whether MicroProfile hosts its own specs or goes to a stds body down the line.

Cheers,
Martijn

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/72c94410-b441-4571-8c81-8f6ec63190bb%40googlegroups.com.

[Kevin Sutter]

I was just talking with Mike this morning at breakfast and he pointed me at the IOT project at Eclipse that seems to have a similar flavor as this MicroProfile initiative.  It's a community and workgroup of industry leaders hosted at Eclpse.  Something to reference as we're weighing the options.

http://iot.eclipse.org/

As far as the license...  Apache is still acceptable at Eclipse, but Mike also suggested that we consider the dual licensing of EPL + BSD.  If we eventually decide to contribute any artifacts to the JCP as part of a JSR, he knows that these are acceptable to Oracle due to the EclipseLink (JPA) and JSON-B projects.  But, one thing at a time...  Let's figure out the foundation first and then worry about the licensing.

Thanks, Kevin

Cheers,
Martijn

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Struberg]

There are current 4 or 5 final Java Specifications under ALv2.

There is 0 Java Specification under EPL. 

Would be a steep battle against Oracle Lawyers.

LieGrue,

strub 

[Mike Milinkovich]

You are incorrect. I am suggesting this model precisely because it has been vetted by the Oracle lawyers.

First of all, I did not suggest EPL only. I suggested a dual-license: EPL+BSD.

Secondly, the reference implementations for both JPA and JSON-B are under this same dual-license (EPL+BSD). Both of those reference implementation projects are led by Oracle. 

Thirdly, I'm not suggesting this license model because we don't like the Apache license. It is solely because using the same licensing model as Oracle themselves would overcome any future objections about bringing Microprofile code into EE. 

Mike Milinkovich
mike.mil...@eclipse.org
+1.613.220.3223

From: markst...@gmail.com Sent: September 19, 2016 12:49 AM To: microp...@googlegroups.com Cc: mike.mil...@eclipse.org; jcli...@redhat.com Subject: Re: [microprofile] Re: DISCUSS: Software Foundation for Microprofile

[Mark Struberg]

I'm talking about specifications itself and the API jars, not the RIs.

ALv2 specs:

JSR-299

JSR-345

JSR-365

JSR-303

JSR-352

JSR-330

JSR-380

LieGrue,

strub

[Ian Robinson]

Like many of us here, IBM is used to working with both ASL and EPL and can go along with either. If all other things were to be equal, a direction that made it easier for others like Oracle to get involved in the future would be a useful tie-breaker so I hope we give due consideration to Mike's point of view. Other that "ASL has been good for us in the past" are there specific objections to EPL+BSD?

Regards,
Ian

.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/383b71c6-74e2-41f2-9803-62df8e317205%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

[John D. Ament]

The legal text on the EPL is a bit odd https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html

It refers to contributors as those who distribute the software, but in 1.b uses a slightly different definition which is a bit contradictory.

3.b.iv also requires source code with the distribution, similar to LGPL, which is where things get a little shaky with open source contributions while commercial vendors are also leveraging those technologies (e.g. a problem of defining a clear separation between commercial code and open source contributions made by the same person in a commercial package).

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to

microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/383b71c6-74e2-41f2-9803-62df8e317205%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Greg Luck]

I think this is a very good idea. 

The Pivotal Software Foundation shares office space at the Presidio with the Linux Software Foundation. So there are ways to do it cost effective. 

I think this initiative has to be kept far away from the JCP and a foundation does it

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-7, Martijn Verburg wrote:

Hi all,

I was just on the JCP EC call where Anil Gaur (Java EE lead) from Oracle discussed some of their ideas for enterprise Java in the world of reactive/cloud and Java EE 8 (public minutes will be out in the next week or so). It was mentioned that Oracle has had some early conversations with some of the vendors involved in MicroProfile to see if they can align efforts. That is, to explore new technologies *before* standardisation.  I think this is welcome news!

Regardless of how this pans out in practise *and* given the early success of Microprofile (for example IBM getting their implementation up and running) I think we should provide Microprofile a truly independent base from which to operate, that is a Software Foundation.

A Software Foundation will ensure that there is a balance between the vendors and other interest groups and individuals as well as giving IP and legal protection for contributions.

So, I'll open this to the floor:

"Should Microprofile go into a Software Foundation and of so, shall we do this soon?"

Cheers,
Martijn

[Andy Gumbrecht]

I think given the discussion so far it would make sense to approach both Eclipse Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation and see what information they would like to offer the group.

http://www.apache.org/foundation/#who-runs-the-asf - Who?

https://eclipse.org/org/foundation/staff.php -Who?

We should then take a 7 day vote (more than enough time for a JavaOne come-down), and commit to the result.

Andy.

[Werner Keil]

Presidio, I just went there on a walk Saturday. Lucas Arts/ILM has their office, too, with a Yoda statue ;-)

Linux Foundation was mentioned, but it seems, either Apache or Eclipse were found closer to Java (not always the JCP though both are members;-D)

Werner

[Wayne Beaton]

I've added some comments to the document.

In retrospect, I probably should have put more of the responses in line...

Wayne

On 14/09/16 03:32 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote:

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi Wayne,

No problem, it was perfect.  I've taken your answers and put them (paraphrased) as statements in the text.

@Kevin, I think I've answered your questions, if you can check and reply and/or mark the comment as resolved then I think we've got the doc ready for the next review by the community.

Cheers,
Martijn

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/b29a931e-9e82-daaf-e1f4-ffb011a663f5%40eclipse.org.

[Martijn Verburg]

Hi all,

Kevin and I have finished our Q&A with Wayne and I think the document reflects what's expected if we join Eclipse.

At this stage I propose we allow community members the rest of this week to review the doc and put forward more questions.  Assuming those can be resolved I think we should put it to a vote (to start a proposal at EF).

Cheers,
Martijn

[Steve Millidge]

How does project governance work in Eclipse. Do you have to be a paid up member of the foundation to be a member of a PMC or can any commiter be a member of the PMC?

[Wayne Beaton]

You do *not* have to be a paid member of the EF to take on any project role, including PMC membership. Note that top level projects are more coarse grained at the Eclipse Foundation than they are at the Apache Foundation, only top-level projects have PMCs, and the PMCs decide the rules for who gets to be a member.

I'll help MicroProfile find an appropriate top-level project to host under (likely our "Technology" top level project).

Project governance is defined by the Eclipse Development Process.

https://eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php

The Eclipse Project Handbook provides most of the mechanics of getting things done.

https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/

HTH,

Wayne

On 28/09/16 03:54 PM, Steve Millidge wrote:

How does project governance work in Eclipse. Do you have to be a paid up member of the foundation to be a member of a PMC or can any commiter be a member of the PMC?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/a86c2805-f96f-42b3-b0c8-d151c5c5c182%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Werner Keil]

Even before Science became an Eclipse top-level project it now should be, there was a "steering committee" http://science.eclipse.org/steeringcommittee
There is at least one name in its list who sounds like he could also be an individual (not paid) Eclipse member.

Is that correct? It's up to everyone involved, if a Microprofile at Eclipse could be a WG or project, but what was expressed here earlier about a "core team" deciding on the inclusion of certain parts, that on a project or WG level feels like Science's steering committee regardless of what name you give.

Regards,
Werner

[Wayne Beaton]

Let me try again: you don't need to be a paying member of the Eclipse Foundation to participate in an open source project.

Managing technical artifacts (e.g. code, documentation, specs) and interaction between technical people about technical issues is a project-level activity. Developers, architects, and the ilk participate at the project level. This is what we're talking about in this thread.

Working groups are out of context in this discussion.

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/8e017f90-bbe7-496f-bfa5-735fc8a55257%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kevin Sutter]

I agree, Wayne.  I think the problem is that the term "working group" is overloaded.  Many people think of a "working group" as a subset of the project working on a specific task.  Where in the Eclipse sense, a "working group" is more of a governing unit (at least in my way of thinking).  Not every Eclipse project will have a "working group", but many of the major projects do.  I would expect that MicroProfile will eventually define a "working group", but like you said -- that's out of the context of this discussion at this point.

http://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/

Kevin

[Mark Little]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/c3140c12-9617-4de2-bf7f-5a2502b2cdb9%40googlegroups.com.