Add a pro/con comparison document

[starksm64]

An initial version of a pro/con comparison document as requested Signed-off-by: Scott M Stark starksm64@gmail.com

[aeiras]

reviewed, impressive Scott. I won't merge the PR as it requires more viewers. :) you ROCK!

[kwsutter]

Thanks, @jclingan. I also just added @waynebeaton as a reviewer to ensure we're doing a fair comparison.

[aeiras]

@starksm64 can you please add to the Pros on the MPWG that it will provide 100% Budget transparency via its website resource page, at least via % as the bare minimum.

Cons for the Cloud proposal bare to minimal budget transparency example Jakarta EE via ticket added to the broader Community.

Thanks

[smillidge]

@starksm64 can you please add to the Pros on the MPWG that it will provide 100% Budget transparency via its website resource page, at least via % as the bare minimum. Cons for the Cloud proposal bare to minimal budget transparency example Jakarta EE via ticket added to the broader Community. Thanks

@aeiras how can you say that? There is no comment about budget transparency in the two proposals. If you want to write a pros and cons document it has to be fair and cover only what is presented in the proposals.

[aeiras]

+1 John!

Sent from my IPhone

On Dec 17, 2019, at 12:55 PM, John Clingan notifications@github.com wrote:

 @jclingan commented on this pull request.

In proposals/working-group/Comparisons.adoc:

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ += Pros/Cons of Each Proposal + +== MPWG +Pros + + Flatter governing structure as steering committee, marketing committee and specification committees share the same membership. + Addresses IP gap in existing MP development + Provides complete autonomy of how MP evolves as governing structure is not part of a non-MP specific working group + Provides a lower barrier to entry in terms of both cost and process for the MP technology + Continues a model that has produced multiple independent implementations of novel technologies over a number of years + Allows for large companies to sponsor specification development at a zero cost entry point +* Less restrictive use of compatibility and logo usage The thinking here is that MP logo could be used on individual spec implementations, not just at the platform level. Java EE lost a lot of leverage by not letting the compatibility logo be used with just servlet, for example. How many developers know that a tremendous amount of Java EE technology underlies Spring?

This is part of the benefit of having a separate MPWG. It can make decisions that are substantively different than Jakarta EE. Some decisions may work out better than Jakarta EE, some may come out worse. However, in the end both MicroProfile and Jakarta EE can try different approaches and see what works. Then the projects make adjustments along the way. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think that will happen under a single steering committee.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[jclingan]

FYI, I didn't create the pros and cons document, but I agree with a lot of it. Also, it was put out there as a document for everyone to comment on. This is the whole point.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:55 PM Steve Millidge notifications@github.com wrote:

@smillidge commented on this pull request.

In proposals/working-group/Comparisons.adoc https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/pull/74#discussion_r359049786 :

+Pros + + Allows for parties interested in both MPWG and CN4J/Jakarta to sign one working group participation agreement + Addresses IP gap in existing MP development + Tends to focus on stability and backwards compatibility + Has restrictions on how compatibility and branding are claimed (both Pro/Con) + +Cons + + Currently has a higher entry cost and overall overhead to run + Currently has no zero entry participation model for larger companies to sponsor specification development + Introduces a conflict of interest between evolution and support of enterprise customers and their previous investment in Java EE with a shared steering committee + Has more process around separate steering, specification and marketing committees + Has restrictions on how compatibility and branding are claimed (both Pro/Con) + Has baggage to overcome due to legal requirements to move Java EE to Jakarta +* Has still not proven that the process is capable of delivering novel content to end users

@jclingan https://github.com/jclingan it's not a con because in the CN4J proposal the MP project is free to create its own specification process. If you want to write a credible unbiased pros and cons document to help people decide address the substantive facts in each proposal not add opinion or intentions. If you wish to write a document describing pros and cons that is advocating one of the positions go ahead but don't dress it up as a neutral document.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/pull/74?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAR246TEKB6NHF5GUXRQP3QZFDFLA5CNFSM4J2WOLXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOCPRG6XA#discussion_r359049786, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAR242ZZ2MUI7SPD7JNF7DQZFDFLANCNFSM4J2WOLXA .

[aeiras]

PR needs to be merged into the main page & left open.

Happy to do it tmw. Yet welcoming anyone with commit access to get it integrated today! 🥋

Sent from my IPhone

On Dec 17, 2019, at 5:03 PM, John Clingan notifications@github.com wrote:

FYI, I didn't create the pros and cons document, but I agree with a lot of it. Also, it was put out there as a document for everyone to comment on. This is the whole point.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:55 PM Steve Millidge notifications@github.com wrote:

@smillidge commented on this pull request.

In proposals/working-group/Comparisons.adoc https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/pull/74#discussion_r359049786 :

+Pros + + Allows for parties interested in both MPWG and CN4J/Jakarta to sign one working group participation agreement + Addresses IP gap in existing MP development + Tends to focus on stability and backwards compatibility + Has restrictions on how compatibility and branding are claimed (both Pro/Con) + +Cons + + Currently has a higher entry cost and overall overhead to run + Currently has no zero entry participation model for larger companies to sponsor specification development + Introduces a conflict of interest between evolution and support of enterprise customers and their previous investment in Java EE with a shared steering committee + Has more process around separate steering, specification and marketing committees + Has restrictions on how compatibility and branding are claimed (both Pro/Con) + Has baggage to overcome due to legal requirements to move Java EE to Jakarta +* Has still not proven that the process is capable of delivering novel content to end users

@jclingan https://github.com/jclingan it's not a con because in the CN4J proposal the MP project is free to create its own specification process. If you want to write a credible unbiased pros and cons document to help people decide address the substantive facts in each proposal not add opinion or intentions. If you wish to write a document describing pros and cons that is advocating one of the positions go ahead but don't dress it up as a neutral document.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/pull/74?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAR246TEKB6NHF5GUXRQP3QZFDFLA5CNFSM4J2WOLXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOCPRG6XA#discussion_r359049786, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAR242ZZ2MUI7SPD7JNF7DQZFDFLANCNFSM4J2WOLXA .

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[starksm64]

Therefore this is a biased document.

I don't necessarily disagree, but some of these topics are inherently subjective. The comparison can be moved to the MPWG specific directory, and and someone who feels the cloud native proposal is better can create their own list. I don't believe any of the statements to be false, so those which are should be the topic of review.

[nmcl]

Maybe I'm wrong but reading through these comments I get the distinct impression that there are two camps here:

(i) those who believe a CN4J WG would be the Jakarta EE WG with some minor tweeks, inherit the Jakarta EE Steering Committee etc.

(ii) those who believe a CN4J WG would not inherit Jakarta EE WG at all and could instead define something more "neutral" and push MP and Jakarta EE specific needs further down to each sub-effort.

Then the comments by group (i) often run into conflict with the understanding of group (ii).

[aeiras]

@kwsutter thanks for merging this PR yet I don't see it in the https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-sandbox/tree/master/proposals/working-group

I recommend that the comparison (s) be added directly on that main document. Further, MP media pushes 2 reminders for week until the end of Feb to that main doc... using that, please lets keep the this and future PRs within the main doc as they are easy to find and consume. :) Thanks for the follow up clarification.