Yes. Me too. I actually don't like the word "vendors," but it has been used for so long that its sorta stuck. However, my personal opinion on the meaning of the word shouldn't hold (full) weight --- hence, lets VOTE.
Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Dylan Millikin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >>
