Seems that the DISCUSS is leaning towards removing "vendor" terminology.
I will now make this a VOTE. If the VOTE is not heavily sided towards one side, we can bring up with gremlin-users@. Thanks everyone, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Ran Magen <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 Imolementers > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 20:26 Bob Briody <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've always liked the terms implementer and implementation. Plus, as >> Stephen stated, this was how it used to roll anyway. >> >> Everyone else is just a "user", right? Point being, "users" is a good term >> to group application developers, driver developers, and whoever else into a >> set of personas that operate via the APIs and are basically just not >> implementers. >> >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jason Plurad <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Have a good one, >>> Jason >>> >>
