Start Push vs Pull vote Tuesday - Need to Finalize text

[John Clingan]

I'd like to "encourage" the push vs pull discussion in-between Live Hangout meetings. We are not moving quickly enough, so I'd like to put a forcing function in place. Finalize the discussion by the next Live Hangout, Working Group call (March 10th) and start the 1 week vote clock after the call. What is in the box is what we are voting on. I'll continue to own what's in the box by consolidating feedback, but please feel free to comment on my consolidations. Here is what I think is left to do:

1. Finalize text (google doc w/text) (supporting thread)
2. Finalize committers to vote
3. Define voting mechanism.
1. My starting suggestion: google group thread with nothing but posts with "name", "push" or "pull". NO DISCUSSION IN THAT THREAD. We can track via a spreadsheet to make it more clear to count but we need an email address as identifying proof.

Participate now or forever hold your peace. I recommend the former :-)

[John Clingan]

I feel like we've got the "pull" model generally agreed upon or pretty close to it. However, I feel we need more discussion around the push model. Thx Bill S and David L for providing comments. There are areas  that have not been fully decided yet, like "is LTS still an option"?

So, I'm giving a nudge to the community since we have 5 days left to solidify the text.

Thanks!

[Emily Jiang]

Thanks John!

I've added some comments on Pull Model - LTS.

Thanks

Emily

[John Clingan]

I've replied. You are going to need lead a discussion between now and Tuesday to vet this idea more. At this point it's not well enough defined or understood to add as a 3rd option. Don't get me wrong, I think this idea has merit and did when you suggested it.

I'm copying your text here  because it is easier to converse here than in google doc comments :-)

"I would like to move this out to be on its self between pull and push
Pull model with LTS
MicroProfile evolves itself. MicroProfile spec can declare LTS release for any downstream to consume. For the APIs/SPIs released, it will not introduce any backward incompatible changes. Then MicroProfile continue evolving itself for 2 years. With the 2 years, MicroProfile spec can explore any apis and freely remove any APIs/SPIs added in the interim without any package name changes."

Here are some of my thoughts on this:

• I'm assuming that namespace remains org.eclipse.microprofile. Any namespace changes would be the responsibility of the external organization. It basically follows the "hands-off" approach with external organizations.
• This feels like a short-term (2-year) fork. Is this the case? Although not generally frequent, the LTS may still need patch releases for:
• TCK or spec clarifications
• Updating TCKs to address CVEs in dependencies, etc

What I think you are proposing is a path for external organizations to maintain some means of MicroProfile compatibility with a "resync-with-MicroProfile-every-two-years" model. What this proposal buys external organizations is one additional year of backwards compatibility - since MicroProfile has 1 year today - at the cost of not being able to absorb new features during that time.

[Emily Jiang]

• This feels like a short-term (2-year) fork. Is this the case? Although not generally frequent, the LTS may still need patch releases for:

• TCK or spec clarifications
• Updating TCKs to address CVEs in dependencies, etc

Yes, TCK or spec clarifications and CVE fixes will occur on that branch.

I will start a new thread to discuss this further.

Thanks

Emily

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/jwuTJm4wyJc/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/079cb764-a983-4242-815d-b91d6d5900d4%40googlegroups.com.

--

Thanks
Emily

[John Clingan]

No need to start a new thread. Just comment here.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/079cb764-a983-4242-815d-b91d6d5900d4%40googlegroups.com.

--

Thanks
Emily

[John Clingan]

Never mind, I had to refresh browser to see new thread.

Thx.

[John Clingan]

Final reminder.

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:47:07 AM UTC-8, John Clingan wrote:

[Amelia Eiras]

Jon and Community, 

Thank you for using the Jan &  Feb hangouts to get us to today's vote. 

I was on vacation for the last 2 MP Hangouts and felt zero worry about this task. WHY? 

Because through this forum and throughout the MPhangouts that started in January, we - each one of us participating, have chosen to be as open, as candid and clear when communication and setting expectations and asking enough questions to get us here.  

Super fun and a great time to join this Community, for the new reader or expectation. Join us, it is fun to show how stuff in OSS works. 

[John Clingan]

Who's Jon?

[Amelia Eiras]

John, my direct apologies! :) 

Amelia Eiras 

twitter.com/ameliaeiras

Tribe: http://tomitribe.com      https://tribestream.io   

OSS:  http://microprofile.io     https://jakarta.ee

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/microprofile/jwuTJm4wyJc/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/30ba3740-4a2c-4b75-a03e-4cb5c0364507%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clingan]

I was just having a bit of fun, LOL. Nothing to apologize for, Amelia!

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.