| To be honest, I am not sure there is that much to it without making some critical decisions/concessions and establishing an ethos of binding consensus possibly only through voting. You can see that even with the fairly trivial slide deck we came up with collaboratively within the Jakarta EE Ambassadors: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zei-cHG9xSasb0NwLI03OO0zboCHBekDP0M6A8shLuo/edit.
The alternative is having a group of organizations/individuals that seem to collaborate only on the surface but in effect really are indefinitely disagreeing and going their own (fragmented) ways. It’s regrettable, but honestly we knew in the Guardians this might happen post Java EE/JCP/SunOracle stewardship (this tendency is unfortunately all too endemic of open source vis-a-vis open standards). At the time, there was little choice but to accept that risk, take action and hope for the best. Reza Rahman Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer. On Sep 21, 2021, at 4:02 PM, Ruslan Synytsky <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe we need to adjust the topics on such alliance meetings, at least to start with something that we can all easily agree and collaborate on?
Regards
If there is some truth to this, it is very unfortunate. Personally for me, the alliance is a hopeful development. The value of working together to advance both technology sets in a sensible, collaborative fashion is far more beneficial and less of a risky bet than the alternative, which devolves essentially to an entirely avoidable zero sum game. Both technology sets have a respectable space and unique value. There is a lot of scope for win-win outcomes. Reza Rahman Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer. I think this shows again that we probably made a mistake with the CN4J alliance. It was created as an opportunity to collaborate since both Jakarta EE and MicroProfile operate in the same technical space. But it is an informal group and it was clear from the beginning that Jakarta EE and MicroProfile strongly emphasised their independence. And that they would do what they think is best for their group only. Having only 'discussions' on the mailing list will only enlarge the gap between the two groups as in a mailing message, persons just give their opinion on a subject or just note what they find wrong in the other parties opinion but there is no attempt to get a consensus on a topic as that requires direct communications. I have seen several examples of that behaviour in the last couple of months. I hope I'm wrong and that we can work closely together and come with the best solution for both groups and the 'community'.
Rudy CN4J technical calls are canceled until further notice, with discussions to continue on this mailing list.
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
> On Sep 20, 2021, at 1:32 PM, John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Any other comments. Unless I get positive feedback, I plan to cancel tomorrow’s call.
>
>> On Sep 20, 2021, at 12:51 PM, David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> At the moment I'm not finding the calls terribly useful. We seem to be ok to talk about things in the abstract, but when a concrete example appears such as MicroProfile Config/Jakarta Config, it's flagged up as inappropriate. It makes me question the value of the having any abstract technical discussions.
>>
>> I think there's value in having abstract and concrete technical discussions, but I think we could benefit from shifting to email for a period.
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Blevins
>> http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 12:58 PM, John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a couple of topics that we could talk about:
>>>
>>> * Namespace
>>> * Moving specs between the working groups
>>>
>>> However, before I continue to schedule the calls, I’d like to make sure of two things:
>>>
>>> 1) The topics are timely and relevant
>>> 2) Attendees find these calls useful
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
--
_______________________________________________cn4j-alliance mailing listcn4j-alliance@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cn4j-alliance
|
