Le 30 mars 2018 04:30, "David Blevins" <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 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? More than never but I just dont ignore other projects. I understand most of voting people are not involved in G and therefore I can see where they come from (and no Jon, this was not directed to you in particular). The main difference is Im thinking of communities and not community. You are also plain wrong saying there is no way to contribute, there are plenty as on any asf projects and for most people it will be the exact same. Project is created @G, if T duplicates it what does happen? We get an half baked flavor on one side and another one on the other? Do you think it is the right thing for asf David? Do you want to split communities? Do you want to make of TomEE a put it all project which means getting rid of TomEE as a thing? Im really fed up to be always felt as the bad guy but I also know it is wrong and will fail. Short terms it will fake some activity on the project (is it the goal?) Which can be good, long terms it will kill all the good of TomEE AND our libraries as mentionned earlier. If you want to pass it in force you can but please remive me from the pmc before. -David
