+1 Down with vendors, Up with implementers.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Have a good one, Jason
