It looks like I missed an interesting discussion!
With respect to the IP policies, I think Jonas brings up a very good point. To what degree do we know that Eclipse.org consumers actually want such a rigorous IP policy? That is, are we merely asserting that they do or has their been a survey? Instead of saying "Some board members REALLY need/want it" and "Science doesn't care as much" or other such things, I think it would be very nice to put this out to the community as part of a survey. Jonas is very, very correct that Eclipse.org does more than most companies. See, for example, the information in this year's Future of Open Source Software Survey, . Most companies do nothing, which isn't necessarily a problem when providing cloud services (barring any use of AGPL, for example), but might be otherwise.
As for Docker, I'm very happy to see this come up. As Jim just said in his letter, it would be nice to be able to ship downloads in Docker containers.
In other news, since I see the PMC Reps note under the attendees section, the Science TLP was approved by the board and we are in the process of standing up the PMC. More information on that as I have it.
Another issue that has come up in the process of establishing the Science TLP is the role of LGPL software at Eclipse. This is a very big issue for the SWG because a huge amount of Science codes require LGPL prerequisites. Not allowing LGPL prerequisites hinders our ability to both grow the community and provide state-of-the-art capability. However, our request to the board to have blanket approval for Science projects to use LGPL prerequisites was not approved. In response, we plan to write letters to the board reps to educate them on this issue and to start filing CQs for LGPL licensed packages that are unique in nature and could not be easily and ought not be reproduced. It would be very nice to get the thoughts of the AC on this issue at the next call.
Again, apologies for missing such an interesting discussion today.