> On Mar 29, 2018, at 12:57 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 29, 2018, at 12:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Le 29 mars 2018 20:49, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> >>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 6:29 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> Is your -1 on the basis that the code must be moved to Geronimo? >>> >>> That + the fact tomee is not and shouldnt become a put it all project just >>> become of scm perms IMO but stay an integration project to keep sense and >>> not mess up its own image and mess up the quality of our reusable libs. >> >>> Do you see this as a one-time situation or do you intend to vote the same >>> way on any future MicroProfile implementation work in TomEE? >>> >>> For example, should work be started to implement MicroProfile OpenTracing >>> in TomEE, would that PR be -1 on the basis the implementation should be in >>> Geronimo? >> >> Being said it will be in G anyway since that is half of G definition since >> some months now (since server has been dropped), I ll do my best to keep it >> consistent in our small ecosystem and do the same to have strong reusable >> libs since there is no technical blockers @MP to have it and a strong >> integration solution (tomee) and not a mess with an in between state. > > I'm reading that as a yes that you would -1 future MP implementation work in > TomEE on the basis it should live in Geronimo, but you hope it doesn't come > to that and will do your best to create good implementations in Geronimo so > it isn't necessary. > > If I misunderstood, please clarify.
> On Mar 29, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Globally that is it. You explained a lot why geronimo failed and not sure > why tomee is kind of taking the same path - well actually cause of "perms > lack" fear from what I read. This is not a safe reason (+not that relevant > @asf thanks to the meritocracy) and Id prefer to keep "us" being unite as > we have been 7 years ago instead of just going on different paths cause of > a fears. I think we should openly discuss your perspective and how it might be perceived by the project. There are 11 +1 votes, 5 of them binding. It does appear that overall the project would like to move forward with the code. You -1 the code on the basis that it should go to Geronimo instead with the clear statement you will continue to -1 so on future MicroProfile code. Can you see how this creates a situation where 11 people feel they have no ability to contribute to the project now or in the future? Do you feel this is the spirit of the Apache Way and represents community over code? -David
