The code still is in a PR (#123) for the moment I'm in to help. Still some small fixes to do and I'd like MP-Config to be used to configure keys, issues, and others.
-- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote: > As noted elsewhere: the vote question was a mixture of 'what do you > think' (consensus -> majority vote) and 'is it ok' (technical -> unanimous > vote). > I'd also be in favour to do the generic parts in Geronimo and only do the > integration in TomEE. So yes, in a consensus vote I'd also vote -1. If this > is interpreted as commit vote then I vote -0 > The work is the same and as long as it's been done I'm fine either ways. > Now that we did all the 3 weeks of rambling and discussions let's focus on > the important stuff. > Where is the code? Who did already work on it? Or do we again have 30 > people discussing but just 2 working? ;) > > LieGrue,strub > On Wednesday, 4 April 2018, 01:14:57 CEST, David Blevins < > david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It was more as a "if im always the only one seeing tomee differently i > can > > leave to let you space". Not as a threat. > > That's a generous sentiment. Either way the best outcome is that you stay > and we all learn the lesson that disagreeing is ok and healthy. How is the > most important part. > > Disagreement can be an incredibly productive and innovative thing if done > right. By definition, that means this project is sitting on some > incredible innovative potential. > > A concrete way I think we can measure ourselves is by the number of people > who feel comfortable voting. I would consider a vote of 20 people that > included 3 -1 votes to be significantly more healthy than a vote of 3 > people and all +1s. > > > [...] > > There is no veto at apache if you check rules closely. All is more about > > respect and overall consensus IIRC. > > I want to be careful that we don't learn a false lesson as Apache does > have technical vetos. These are more meant for line-of-code level input vs > community direction. > > The intention of the two votes was to make the line a little more clear. > > - The first vote "Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support" was > intended to flush out line-of-code level technical issues with the PR: > breaks the build; doesn't follow code style; introduces security issues. > It's ultimately a Review-than-Commit vote and a -1 should be viewed as a > technical veto. > > - The second vote "Explore creating a reusable JWT Library" was intended > to determine overall desire on what the next step should be. No commit > being reviewed, more of a community level discussion. A -1 should not be > viewed as a veto. > > > -David > >
