[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cn4j-alliance] Question on putting forward a proposal
|
I was going to work with Emily from the Jakarta side. We need to focus on the rational for option 1. Steve, et al. are going to do option 2.
Hi Emily,
I would expect a proposal to be a "strawman" with a preferred solution. The proposal could explain why other alternatives didn't meet the criteria. But, we should have something concrete to discuss, poke holes at, and eventually come up with something that we can live with.
According to our earlier discussions, a proposal should also come from members of both teams (Jakarta and MP). So, you should seek out a champion from both camps. I would assume you would champion MP Config. Is there someone on the Jakarta side that you could work with to come up with a workable proposal?
Thanks,
Kevin
I have a question for the proposal to be brought under CN4J:
Does the proposal need to be one choice or can be a number of choices?
In more detail, there was a discussion on how to get MicroProfile Config to be consumed by Jakarta in the Jakarta mailing list. There are a few ideas on the table:
1. Move MicroProfile Config to Jakarta without changing namespace
2. Move MicroProfile Config to Jakarta but changing namespace from microprofile to jakarta
3. another option
Should these options be listed under one proposal or they need to have 3 proposals?
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
cn4j-alliance mailing list
cn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
