+1 for Implementers
On 05/10/2015 18:10, Jason Plurad wrote:
> +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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
