That's a nice word. Perhaps there were times we referred to it as such. It sounds familiar but I searched around for "Blueprints Provider" and turned up nothing of consequence. If we ever used that I'm not sure where we were doing it. That being said "Implementers" (and variations) seemed to show up more often on gremlin-users in the right context. Nothing scientific in my approach of course...
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 AM, James Thornton <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't "provider" the term typically used for interface/specification > implementations? > > - James > On Oct 5, 2015 3:33 PM, "Marko Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > In the documentation we have: > > > > > http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/#vendor-requirements > > > > Similarly, we use the term "vendor" here and there to denote people who > > provide TinkerPop-enabled graph systems and languages (commercial or > > otherwise). The term "vendor" has been stated by the ASF mentors as being > > "too commercial." Thus, we can change the docs to say "Implementers." > Note > > that the homepage already uses the terms "Implementations." > > > > Please vote whether you want to remove the term "vendor" from our > parlance. > > > > +1 [remove vendor] > > -1 [keep vendor] > > > > ------- my vote is +1 remove vendor. > > > > This vote with close in 72 hours -- Thursday 8, 2015 at 2:35pm MST. > > > > Thanks, > > Marko. > > > > http://markorodriguez.com > > > > >
