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

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Mark Struberg <>

>  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 <
>> wrote:
>  > On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <>
> 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

Reply via email to