Consideration of relaxed ballot duration

83 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Bratt

unread,
Sep 15, 2020, 4:39:38 PM9/15/20
to MicroProfile

On behalf of Oracle, I would like to congratulate the MicroProfile team on completing the working group charter. This sets MicroProfile on track for development of future Enterprise Java components and APIs for years to come.

As some of you already know, we have been shipping Helidon, a MicroProfile compatible implementation, for some time. Helidon currently supports MicroProfile 3.2 and we intend to release 3.3 support soon.

Oracle would very much like to become a member of the MicroProfile Working group.

We are currently struggling with adoption of the one-week ballot review period. While we understand that "everything should be done" before the ballot comes up for review, Murphy is always lurking and ready to muck things up: elements of the component might be modified just prior to ballot; someone with that particular expertise is away; someone with approval authority is away; etc. etc. In particular, for specifications that we do not have much active participation, a one week review period could be quite difficult for us to manage.

For Oracle and perhaps other large organizations, especially those with large intellectual property portfolios, we think this quick ballot period could be a barrier to joining the working group as well. So we are inquiring to see if there is any interest from the existing membership to adopt a slightly more generous ballot period.

The following outlines a proposal that we would like to see considered:

Those who are acquainted with the Jakarta EE working group probably know that it uses a slightly modified ballot duration from what is described in the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process (the EFSP). Mechanically,  the Jakarta EE working group adopts the EFSP and modifies some elements of that process. This is written in the Jakarta EE Specification Process (the JESP). For the more significant ballots, this addendum specifies a two week ballot period.

Here are the ballot periods from the second bullet of current JESP:

  • Creation Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Plan Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Progress Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Release Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Service Release Review: 14 calendar days; and
  • JESP Update: 7 calendar days.

In order to move things along when additional time is not needed, we would further encourage a clause stating something like:

  • All ballots will be considered complete once the specified duration has elapsed or all eligible voting members have cast their vote, whichever comes first.
What do the MicroProfile members think about considering a proposal such as this?

Scott Stark

unread,
Sep 15, 2020, 4:57:15 PM9/15/20
to MicroProfile
I don't see the additional time as too burdensome, especially if it can be short circuited when all vote.

David Blevins

unread,
Sep 15, 2020, 5:35:06 PM9/15/20
to Micro Profile
On Sep 15, 2020, at 1:39 PM, Ed Bratt <edwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

In order to move things along when additional time is not needed, we would further encourage a clause stating something like:

  • All ballots will be considered complete once the specified duration has elapsed or all eligible voting members have cast their vote, whichever comes first.

I think this is workable.

If we have the above ability to short-circuit, a longer review period is much more livable.  A primary concern for me is not necessarily the time for the first vote, but the mandatory additional two weeks for any failed vote -- we need to protect the ability to vote -1 and have a re-roll or two.  With a 2 week period and no short-circuit a reroll means we'd be looking at a month, which is a big deal given we're releasing roughly once a quarter.

The short-circuit could also create a culture of encouraging early voting, which is not a bad perk.  I say this in self-awareness as someone who has voted -1 on a spec towards the end of a two week period :)


-David

Wayne Beaton

unread,
Sep 16, 2020, 9:10:43 AM9/16/20
to MicroProfile
According to the EFSP, ballot periods cannot be shortened to fewer than seven days. There is also a provision that permits any member of the specification committee to extend the ballot period to thirty days.

A ballot is used to seek Specification Committee approval. Unless otherwise stated in this process (or a Working Group-specific derivative of this process), the default period for all Specification Committee ballots is seven (7) days. During that time, any member of a Specification Committee may request that the period be extended to thirty (30) days.

A Specification Committee may opt to increase the length of the ballot period, but may not—under any circumstances—reduce any review period to fewer than seven (7) days.

So, a working group can opt to set a ballot period to, say, fourteen days, and allow the vote to be called after seven days if everybody has voted.

Note that an extended ballot period (or other additions to the specification process) can be captured in the charter (it doesn't need to be in a separate document).

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/dba1f103-ac55-47e6-ae5c-ce1ee62a1a6bn%40googlegroups.com.


--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

Emily Jiang

unread,
Sep 16, 2020, 2:54:42 PM9/16/20
to MicroProfile
It will be great for Oracle to join MPWG and collaborate together. I am with Scott and David. I think the request for extra week is reasonable since 7 days is the shortest time period any way based on what Wayne said. We can't conclude the vote below 7 days. Therefore, any days between 7-14 sounds OK. In practice, if members vote early instead of waiting for the last day suggested by David, we can conclude the vote any day after 7 days.

Thanks
Emily

Ed Bratt

unread,
Sep 16, 2020, 9:02:45 PM9/16/20
to microp...@googlegroups.com
Thank you Wayne. Perhaps the following text could be added to the charter:

The following ballot durations will be used:
  • Creation Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Plan Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Progress Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Release Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Service Release Review: 14 calendar days; and
  • JESP Update: 7 calendar days.
Each ballot will end after the minimum time-period specified in the EFSP has elapsed and when all eligible members have voted, or when the ballot durations listed above have elapsed. In no event, will a ballot successfully complete before the requisite minimum time-period specified in the EFSP.

I'm only suggesting language here to be helpful. If the membership is interested in taking this in a different direction, please proceed.

-- Ed

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CALXWXwfGb6EOZiYpA-uKPq-UpayGq2WyXkanxUcHBayhu%3DWBgw%40mail.gmail.com.

David Blevins

unread,
Sep 16, 2020, 10:12:47 PM9/16/20
to Micro Profile
On Sep 16, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Ed Bratt <edwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Wayne. Perhaps the following text could be added to the charter:

I appreciate Wayne's suggestion it could go into the charter.  I'd have a strong preference to not re-open the charter and instead create a thin MicroProfile Specification Process (MPSP) and put there.

The following ballot durations will be used:
  • Creation Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Plan Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Progress Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Release Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Service Release Review: 14 calendar days; and
  • JESP Update: 7 calendar days.
Each ballot will end after the minimum time-period specified in the EFSP has elapsed and when all eligible members have voted, or when the ballot durations listed above have elapsed. In no event, will a ballot successfully complete before the requisite minimum time-period specified in the EFSP.

What do you and others think about the concept that the first vote is the above 14 days, but any revotes would be 7 days.  I understand they *could* be 7 days, but I've noticed people often don't have an appetite for the risk that a small fix could push things out 2 weeks.  People are more likely to vote -1 for the things they see need fixing if the worst case scenario is 1 week delay.

Note quite sure how to phrase it, but maybe something along these lines.

"Each ballot will end after the minimum time-period specified in the EFSP has elapsed and when all eligible members have voted, or when the ballot durations listed above have elapsed. The review period for any re-ballot made within 1 week of a failed review will be 7 calendar days."

Thoughts?


-David

Emily Jiang

unread,
Sep 17, 2020, 6:46:44 PM9/17/20
to MicroProfile
+1 David! I had the same concern as you. I agree we don't need to wait for the duration (14 days) once the minimum of 7 days elapsed.
Emily

John Clingan

unread,
Sep 18, 2020, 5:19:00 PM9/18/20
to MicroProfile
First, I also look forward to Oracle being an MPWG member!! Thanks for posting, Ed.

General comments below and some assumptions that would benefit from a review from Wayne.

We are going to have to be much more formal in how we operate than in the past.
* We need to have a plan review (7 days). That also means we have to have an up-front plan. We have had informal planning which now needs to be formal.
* A progress review is required to extend a release. I'm assuming that in normal operation we do not need a progress review since we release every ~120 days and the entire schedule is already pretty compressed. The steering committee can always demand a progress review (per EFSP). I recommend a 7 day ballot period, which I understand is shorter than the JESP.

Also, I'm assuming for MicroProfile 4.0 we can go straight to Release Review.

Here is a strawman repeatable ballot/approval schedule assuming we release every 120 days, max voting period, no progress reviews, assuming every vote passes 1st attempt for simplicity:

Day 0 - Day 14 - Spec Planning resulting in a Release Plan
Day 15 - Day 28 - Release Plan Steering Committee ballot period
Day 29 - Day 35 - EMO review (EMO approves every 2 weeks, so averaging 7-day wait)
Day 36 - Day 97 - Roughly 2 months of normal project operations. The bi-weekly Live Hangout can act as an informal (non-ballot) progress review.
Day 99 - Day 112 - 14-day release ballot
Day 113 -120 - EMO review (EMO approves every 2 weeks, so averaging 7-day wait)
Day 120 - Release

At the start of each release, this strawman schedule can be placed int the MicroProfile calendar.

Wayne Beaton

unread,
Sep 21, 2020, 10:29:05 AM9/21/20
to MicroProfile
The intention of the plan requirement is to ensure that the specification project is starting on a path that will ultimately result in a successful release review and release. That is, the plan is a means of letting the specification committee know what's coming so that they can voice concerns early in the process and the team doesn't end up creating a new version of the specification that fails on ballot for release. 

What constitutes an acceptable plan is left to the discretion of the specification committee.

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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/2b9d06fb-7aca-483d-bd20-9067344628a4n%40googlegroups.com.

Wayne Beaton

unread,
Sep 21, 2020, 12:03:11 PM9/21/20
to MicroProfile
Also, I'm assuming for MicroProfile 4.0 we can go straight to Release Review.

Two things need to happen first: the project needs to be restructured into a specification project and the working group needs to be in the operational phase.

We need a ballot of the specification committee to do the first bit. For that we need to have a specification committee (which is, according to the charter, the steering committee). To have a specification/steering committee, we need to complete the community review period and create the working group (in the incubation phase).

Note that the operational phase requirement (so that the specification can be released while the working group is still in incubation) can be waived by EMO(ED) approval, and that such an approval will be given if asked given MicroProfile's long standing at the Eclipse Foundation.

So... the steps here are:

1. Complete the community review period for the creation of the working group and create the working group in the incubation phase;
2. Stand up the specification committee (which I understand is actually the steering committee, but I'm going to keep using the language of the EFSP);
3. Run a successful specification project "creation" specification committee ballot;
4. The EMO Records team will work with committers to ensure that all are covered by a working group participation agreement;
5. The specification requests EMO(ED) waiver of the operational requirement;
5. Run the release review; and
6. Release.

HTH,

Wayne

David Blevins

unread,
Sep 22, 2020, 3:26:09 PM9/22/20
to Micro Profile
Here is a draft of an MPSP that includes the text below along with the necessary boilerplate:

 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1anTlBMyqMbEnRvC8Pz1pAo17Cejy4qUK9ZPbP7NDk8s/edit?usp=sharing

This is currently in my personal Google drive.  Not sure how to move it into our MP drive.

-- 
David Blevins

On Sep 16, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Ed Bratt <edwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Sep 22, 2020, 4:57:15 PM9/22/20
to MicroProfile
Hi,
We spent all of today's hangout discussing this ballot review period request.  It was a good discussion with several points of view being represented.  If you were not able to attend in person, here's a link to the video:  https://youtu.be/YEHTrrkGCRU

I just realized that the JESP is not referenced at all by the Jakarta EE Working Group charter.  It just states that a specification process will be defined and approved.

The MicroProfile WG charter already indicates that we will follow the EFSP.  Maybe we can just make a simple update to these statements that says "or, an approved derivative".  Or, would that already be implied?  (If we use Jakarta EE as an example, they created a derivative and there's no mention of a potential derivative in their charter.)

-- Kevin

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 2:26:09 PM UTC-5, David Blevins wrote:
Here is a draft of an MPSP that includes the text below along with the necessary boilerplate:

 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1anTlBMyqMbEnRvC8Pz1pAo17Cejy4qUK9ZPbP7NDk8s/edit?usp=sharing

This is currently in my personal Google drive.  Not sure how to move it into our MP drive.

-- 
David Blevins
On Sep 16, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Ed Bratt <edwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Wayne. Perhaps the following text could be added to the charter:

The following ballot durations will be used:
  • Creation Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Plan Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Progress Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Release Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Service Release Review: 14 calendar days; and
  • JESP Update: 7 calendar days.
Each ballot will end after the minimum time-period specified in the EFSP has elapsed and when all eligible members have voted, or when the ballot durations listed above have elapsed. In no event, will a ballot successfully complete before the requisite minimum time-period specified in the EFSP.

I'm only suggesting language here to be helpful. If the membership is interested in taking this in a different direction, please proceed.

-- Ed

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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Sep 22, 2020, 5:20:56 PM9/22/20
to MicroProfile Community
Kevin, 

I recommend that the sentence is removed from the Charter.
Though I did remember the sentence in the charter, I said nothing.  Today's insightful - valuable conversation went over to minute 6+ 12:06pm PDT with everyone still trying to figure stuff. 
I believe it is a good thing to keep MPSP outside of the Charter.  David sent to this thread the draft of the potential MPSP for review.  

Thank you for sharing today's video conversation, good stuff! 


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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/44293f25-7518-4083-8a1e-88c06984189do%40googlegroups.com.

Scott Stark

unread,
Sep 23, 2020, 2:21:23 PM9/23/20
to microp...@googlegroups.com
That is a trivial modification of the current JESP that is adopting the same timelines, so it seems perfect for our requirements and should not pose a problem with finalization of the MPWG. 

It seems like adoption of the same language that refers to a specification process that is approved by the steering committee is a simple update to the charter. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/9D32972D-65A7-4033-B4AC-AB1AE9C9F7AE%40tomitribe.com.

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Sep 23, 2020, 7:29:37 PM9/23/20
to MicroProfile
I agree that this is a trivial change, but we have to remember that this is in the eye of the beholder and *any modifications* to the charter may affect us getting over the finish line.  I'm thinking that maybe we need to just go with what we have for the Charter and the required usage of the EFSP -- just to get the WG established asap.  In parallel, we can continue this discussion to figure out the first order of business for the newly formed MP WG Steering Committee.

-- Kevin

On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 1:21:23 PM UTC-5, Scott Stark wrote:
That is a trivial modification of the current JESP that is adopting the same timelines, so it seems perfect for our requirements and should not pose a problem with finalization of the MPWG. 

It seems like adoption of the same language that refers to a specification process that is approved by the steering committee is a simple update to the charter. 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:26 PM David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
Here is a draft of an MPSP that includes the text below along with the necessary boilerplate:

 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1anTlBMyqMbEnRvC8Pz1pAo17Cejy4qUK9ZPbP7NDk8s/edit?usp=sharing

This is currently in my personal Google drive.  Not sure how to move it into our MP drive.

-- 
David Blevins
On Sep 16, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Ed Bratt <edwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Wayne. Perhaps the following text could be added to the charter:

The following ballot durations will be used:
  • Creation Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Plan Review: 7 calendar days;
  • Progress Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Release Review: 14 calendar days;
  • Service Release Review: 14 calendar days; and
  • JESP Update: 7 calendar days.
Each ballot will end after the minimum time-period specified in the EFSP has elapsed and when all eligible members have voted, or when the ballot durations listed above have elapsed. In no event, will a ballot successfully complete before the requisite minimum time-period specified in the EFSP.

I'm only suggesting language here to be helpful. If the membership is interested in taking this in a different direction, please proceed.

-- Ed

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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Scott Stark

unread,
Sep 24, 2020, 11:16:02 AM9/24/20
to microp...@googlegroups.com
So are we in the 14 day proposal phase? The incubation phase has a task for creating a WG specification process. Can we ask EF if an update to the charter to adopt the same language as the Jakarta WG regarding a WG spec process without completing resetting the timeline? The concern I would have about not addressing this is that I would not expect that you can have a spec process other than what is called out in the charter, therefore, to get out of incubation this needs to be addressed. 

Is the plan to get out of incubation using the EFSP, release 4.0 and then deal with updates?


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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/dee8d54e-8180-4406-ab18-32ac429d8b10o%40googlegroups.com.

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Sep 24, 2020, 3:42:16 PM9/24/20
to MicroProfile
I reached out to Paul and, in turn, he talked with Mike...  They are okay with the current wording of the charter, even if we draft a separate MPSP.  Since the MPSP is a derivative of the EFSP and we claim support for the EFSP, we're good to go for now.  We can continue with the review period for the charter as written.  In our first SC meeting, we would need to approve the charter as-is.

We continue to review the MPSP and get that ready for the Steering Committee.  After the initial charter is approved, then we can propose a slight update to the charter to directly reference the MPSP and finalize/approve the MPSP.  This should easily be accomplished in our second meeting.

Would we be okay this approach?

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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Scott Stark

unread,
Sep 24, 2020, 3:59:49 PM9/24/20
to microp...@googlegroups.com
Sounds like a good approach.

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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Join us at our virtual event: EclipseCon 2020 - October 20-22

--
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.

--
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.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/c_fxUreHL1c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/807e73ef-1a79-44e1-90ed-d789e2edf7f8o%40googlegroups.com.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Sep 24, 2020, 4:42:01 PM9/24/20
to MicroProfile Community
totally +1 as stated in this week's call, -1 in adjusting the Charter before MP is active. ETA Oct 12th. :) Lets secured that day.

Kevin/John-- we should add the very first MPWG Steering call to the MP calendar (using still the current MP zoom) for Oct 20th -- based on internal EMO email with the launch date of Oct 12th. Let's discuss next Tuesday if necessary.

Thanks for double checking with the EMO. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAHyjRvCkCGY2V-wUnz1rC99R3oNnAggcW18cmuUJ%3DQyD9X9Mnw%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages