If memory serves, we've only used "vendor" for as long as TP3 has been around. I swear those who built on top of Blueprints were "Blueprints Implementers". If they built Gremlin (e.g. gremlin-scala) then we had "Gremlin Implementers". I'm not sure we went so far to say "Rexster Implementers", but the idea is sound. Anywho, "Implementers" does the trick for me.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Fitzgerald < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 for dropping "vendor" > On Oct 5, 2015 11:39 AM, "David Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We may agree, Marko, on the discussion around "vendor", but some things > > just aren't worth it. > > By strict definition, not opinion, it does define someone selling > > something. > > > > If the term is offensive, let's pick a new term we try to en-grain in our > > behavior and move on. > > > > We can focus on more important things - like helping our vendors...I mean > > "TP Implementors" use this cool think called TinkerPop/Gremlin. > > > > Here are two suggestions to place on the vote list for terminology: > > > > a) Application Developers - those leveraging the Gremlin Language / APIs > on > > top of an implementation - be that Titan, Orient, Neo4J, Flink, Spark, > > whatever. > > > > a) TinkerPop Implementers (or Implementers for short) - those that > > implement an underlying system, whether for sale or not, that expose the > > Gremlin Language / API. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:13 AM, 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 > > > > > > > > >
