Pulling this reply from Josh into the thread: > Hi Cole, > > I am interested in attending the next one, although 8am PST is always going > to be tricky for me; that's exactly when I am busiest getting my kids off to > school. Any possibility of 10am PST? I realize that this would be evening in > Europe. 9am PST would also work (I would just be a few minutes late). > > Best regards, > > Josh
Hi Josh, It would be great if you could join as well. I'll leave the scheduling question open for a few days for others to weigh in, particularly Pieter and Andrii as they will be most impacted by a later start. My hope is that everyone can make it for most of the meeting starting at 17:00 UTC (09:00 PST, 18:00 CET, 19:00 SAST). If this too late for some folks, I suggest that we alternate these gatherings between 16:00 and 18:00 UTC start times. Please let me know your thoughts on the later times. Thanks, Cole On 2026/01/16 02:17:27 Cole Greer wrote: > Thank you to everyone who joined the gathering today. A summary of the > discussions is included below. The next gathering is currently scheduled for > Jan 29 at 16:00 UTC. Please let me know if you're interested in joining and > if any change of schedule would be helpful. > > Attendance: > - Cole Greer > - Pieter Martin > - Yang Xia > - Ken Hu > > Transactions: > The largest topic of conversation was transactions in TinkerPop 4. The > discussion covered many of the differences between embedded and remote > transactions in TP3, and how there is some intentions to unify this in TP4. > SQLG is primarily concerned with the embedded use case, and the existing > model works well for those purposes. The existing remote transaction model > cannot be retained in TP4 as its tightly coupled to sessions, which no longer > present in TP4. The way that embedded transactions are currently bound to > threads does not translate naturally to GLVs such as gremlin-js. > Compatibility with frameworks such as Spring Boot was raised as a key > requirement. There was substantial discussion around if TinkerPop should > force the scoping of a transaction to a single thread, if they could be > allowed to migrate between threads, or if the API should leave it open to > implementers. The conversation model in JBoss Seam was raised as a > potentially interesting case study to investigate. All parties expressed > interest in continuing to look at other database implementations for > inspiration, considering what requirements make sense for TinkerPop, and > continuing the open [DISCUSS] threads to build consensus on this matter. > > JPMS: > There were discussions of if TinkerPop should move to adopt JPMS. All parties > agreed that modularization would be a good result for TinkerPop, there were > concerns raised that lack of support from our current dependencies may create > challenges with adoption as well as limiting the upside. > > Extensibility of the grammar: > Some discussion resurfaced around a past devlist post to allow providers to > extend the grammar > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/528f5od4d9jrvw9mn0b6xlhtfhvddfoc). It was > raised as a nice to have to limit the differences between embedded and remote > usages. There was no discussion on the mechanics of implementing such > capabilities. > > Dependencies: > TinkerPop should strive to the number of dependencies (many are redundant or > have limited usage). > > Semantics Documentation: > There was support raised for a more clear distinction between the gremlin > language specification and the reference implementation in TinkerPop. The > gremlin semantics docs are progressing towards becoming a complete language > specification, however that work is not complete and much of gremlin > currently remains defined by the reference implementation. > > Thanks, > Cole > > On 2026/01/12 23:24:48 Cole Greer wrote: > > Hi Andrii and Yang, > > > > I've tentatively scheduled this series of gatherings to begin this Thursday > > (Jan 15) at 16:00 UTC. I've scheduled the gathering to repeat every 2 > > weeks. This can of course always be altered based on availability and > > interest. > > > > I've sent a calendar invite to everyone who has replied here, as well as > > Ken and Pieter who expressed interest in Discord. Feel free to forward the > > invite to anyone else who is interested, and I will continue inviting > > anyone who asks. > > > > Others may use the following link to join the meeting as well: > > https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MTk3OTIxYzktYTU1MC00YzQzLTllM2MtMzk5YjdjMzk5MDli%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22f2267c2e-5a54-49f4-84fa-e4f2f4038a2e%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f3bad5a5-c1a2-4172-b5ad-54f2ac72b2c8%22%7d > > > > Thanks, > > Cole > > > > On 2026/01/12 17:34:16 Yang Xia wrote: > > > Hi Cole, > > > > > > Thanks for setting these up! I like the idea of having the meeting on > > > Teams instead of Discord, it helps to mark them in my calendar. > > > > > > I'm open to Wednesdays, but I do have an alternative commitment at 8:30am > > > PT, so I'd prefer Tuesday or Thursday if possible, in case the > > > discussions go long. > > > > > > Will the meetings start at the end of January? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Yang > > > > > > On 2026/01/10 05:29:24 Andrii Lomakin wrote: > > > > Good day, Cool. > > > > Please include me in invite. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 23:48 Cole Greer via dev, <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > I’d like to propose the establishment of recurring meetings to assist > > > > > with > > > > > engagement and alignment across the TinkerPop community. > > > > > I envision these meetings as a place where folks can discuss any > > > > > ideas, > > > > > concerns, or goals they may have related to TinkerPop. All > > > > > formal proposals and development decisions will remain in the dev > > > > > list. > > > > > These meetings would be open to anyone who’d like to join, > > > > > and meeting notes would be taken and posted back to the devlist for > > > > > anyone > > > > > who couldn’t attend. > > > > > > > > > > I think that approximately once every 2 weeks is a good cadence for > > > > > these > > > > > meetings. As most of the folks I see active here are located > > > > > in Europe and North America, I think a time of 16:00 UTC (17:00 CET, > > > > > 08:00 > > > > > PST) is a good compromise to start with. I’m certainly open > > > > > to other meetings times as folks express their availability. If these > > > > > meetings draw interest from folks in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, > > > > > then I would suggest we adopt a rotation of times such that there are > > > > > some > > > > > meetings available at a reasonable time to everyone who is > > > > > interested. > > > > > > > > > > I’d suggest scheduling the meetings every 2nd Wednesday, although > > > > > Tuesdays > > > > > or Thursdays are also good if anyone expresses a > > > > > preference. > > > > > > > > > > If there is sufficient interest, I would expect these new meetings to > > > > > take > > > > > the place of our current gathering on Discord. I would send > > > > > invites to a Teams meeting to anyone who is interested, as well as > > > > > making > > > > > a meeting link publicly available. Anyone will be able to join > > > > > without creating an account, as well as optionally via a browser. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you are interested in such meetings and if you > > > > > have > > > > > any preferences on scheduling. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
