Hi, 17:00 UTC is fine with me.
Thanks Pieter On Fri, 2026-01-16 at 23:07 +0000, Cole Greer wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
