Officially closing the vote.  Thanks for the patience everyone.  This one 
needed some good discussion and a bit of extra time.

Andy Gumbrecht
Bruno Baptista
David Blevins
Gurkan Erdogdu
Ivan Junckes Filho
Jean-Louis Monteiro
Jonathan Gallimore
Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
Richard Monson-Haefel
Rudy De Busscher
Thiago Veronezi

Matthew Broadhead

Romain Manni-Bucau

Vote passes with eleven +1s, one 0, and one -1.  Though this is a technical 
vote and a -1 would normally veto, after long discussion here and a short 
follow up with the board, all involved agree the -1 is not a true technical 
veto and not binding.  Guidance from the board was to use a -0 on technical 
votes if the intent is not to veto.  I think it would be good for us to be 
extra clear if a vote is a technical vote vs consensus.

Though it took a while to talk this one out and the vote is not unanimous, it 
is good to see the discussion and high turnout.  I think this reflects us using 
muscles we haven't used in a while and is an overall incredibly positive thing.

Thanks to everyone who voted and participated in the community discussion!


> On Mar 18, 2018, at 5:02 PM, David Blevins <> wrote:
> Jean-Louis has put a PR up for discussion for JWT Support in TomEE.  
> -
> There are 35 commits spanning 27 days of work.  It's been reviewed by Andy 
> and Rudy.  One a committer and one a contributor, which is great for us.
> There's an open question as to where the code should live in its final state: 
> TomEE or Geronimo.  This conversation doesn't seem conclusive after 12 days.  
> It's ok for us not to agree, but we should have more votes so there is a 
> clear outcome and we are acting as a community to our best ability.
> Vote: Merge Pull Request 123?
> +1  Yes, let's do it
> +-0 Abstain
> -1  No, don't put this code in TomEE
> Out of respect for the conversation, this is not a vote of where the code 
> will live in its final state.  This is just a decision to merge or not.  It 
> would give the users something they can try, which can be updated by a future 
> PR if the code does eventually move.
> -David

Reply via email to