I'm for dropping it if it generates confusion. I don't mind using stuff like "implementors" (graph implementations) and "users" (gremlin-server client development and other direct TP users). Of course, any other suggestions are good.
Cheers On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Pp-otik-ner > > It seems that the mentors are adverse to the term "vendor" even though as > the mentees have explained Hadoop, Spark, Gremlin-Scala, gremlin-php, etc. > are all considered "vendors." That is, anything that implements the > TinkerPop3 API regardless of them being commercial or otherwise is a vendor. > > With that said (and known), we can continually go back and forth with "No. > 'vendor' means this." "Uh uh, it doesn't -- it means this." "That makes no > sense cause to me it means this." > > If we are going to get TinkerPop out of the malaise of personal opinions > and arguments about meaning in the English language (in zeitgeist), I say > we bring this to a collective VOTE which includes the whole community (i.e. > gremlin-users@ as well). I would frame the vote as: > > "Should TinkerPop abstain from its use of the word 'vendor' (to > categorize graph system and graph language implementers) because, to you, > it strongly implies commercial interest?" > > With that vote tally, we can then do accordingly and from then on, no > individual's personal opinion about the meaning of "vendor" will be > considered a valid argument given that language is a socially constructed > phenomena. > > Thoughts?, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > >
