Tiago, I understand the issue concern, as I wrote before.
However I didn’t see any attempt in ML nor in PR to discuss anything. I’d much rather to see initial discussion happening here, and if party involved consider that a call would be helpful, I consider it completely fine. So, please let’s try to have initial conversation here first… unfortunately I can’t make the proposed call time, and I’d love to hear the discussion…. At least proposals on how to solve the situation, so I’d be aware of possible outcomes. Alex On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 9:03 AM Tiago Bento <tiagobe...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for raising it here, given it’s been a topic of debate recently. I > guess they didn’t default to a call in this case and tried to move it > forward in the ML then on the PR directly… but even so people seem to think > written communication is lacking something for them to find a common ground > for this particular case. > > If they feel like getting together on a call will help, I guess that’s > okay, provided there’s a summary captured here for those who can’t attend, > and their proposed resolution is sent in the ML too so everyone can voice > their view as well. > > As long as we’re not under the impression big decisions can be made in > calls within a small group, and we eventually come back to the ML with > something more polished for everyone to understand and participate in, I > guess I don’t see a problem in having these discussion calls. > > In summary I think we can do both: some times discuss in calls then use the > Mailing List for continue discussing and eventually reaching consensus. > > Regards, > > Tiago Bento > > > On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 21:14 Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I’d like to propose that we bring the current conversation around > > SpringBoot support in job-service to the mailing list. > > > > While I understand the intention behind organizing a call to move the > > discussion forward, it’s important to remember that calls are not the > > primary medium for resolving decisions in Apache projects. We’ve used > > calls in the past, but there’s broad consensus now that the ML should > > be the main channel — for transparency, inclusiveness, and alignment > > with the Apache Way. In fact, we recently agreed to discontinue the > > Friday sync meetings for the same reason [1]. > > > > I’m not here to dive into the merits of the technical arguments just > > yet — though I see valid concerns from both perspectives. On one hand, > > the current implementation may seem overly complex and tightly coupled > > with Quarkus, which limits portability. On the other, any significant > > architectural change needs careful consideration, especially when it > > may affect alternative use cases like the SonataFlow deployment > > strategy. > > > > So rather than defaulting to a call, I suggest we use this thread to: > > > > - Surface and clarify the concerns > > - Explore how we can evolve the codebase to support SpringBoot at the > > highest quality standard > > - Ensure we do so without compromising other existing deployment > strategies > > > > Let’s take full advantage of the mechanisms the community has in > > place: [DISCUSS], [PROPOSAL], and [VOTE]. If a call ends up being > > necessary to clarify something specific, it should still be initiated > > through the ML and the outcomes reflected on the ML. > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/xpdvw24ytqojkx7kkbv8l9kp6scznlo3 > > > > - > > Alex > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > >
