Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[] Fwd: [Direct Public Feedback to the Eclipse Board of Directors] MicroProfile Existence under the WorkingGroup space

This is a FORWARD to the Committers under this Ecosystem.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:02 PM
Subject: [Direct Public Feedback to the Eclipse Board of Directors] MicroProfile Existence under the WorkingGroup space
To: MicroProfile Community <microprofile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

MicroProfile Community and the 7 bcc'd Board of Directors of the Eclipse Foundation, 

For the Board of Directors, 

The first part of this message is background information on MicroProfile as of 2020. Thank you for taking the time to consume it. 

On July 7th, this community has its normal bi-monthly Community call with agenda minutes. Since the launch of MicroProfile in June 2016, this ecosystem has protected its processes by having its calls, decisions, agenda minutes & 365 work be transparent, welcoming and open, without deviation.  

In Q4 2019, the MicroProfile community was forced to embark on the creation of a formal Working Group to help fix IP gaps which started in January 2020.  Those public & candid conversation led to the public vote Specification Push vs Pull Vote thread (started on March 10th, 2020- closed March 17th) which resulted in Pull for winning with 37 +1  out of the vote quorum 29 required (Pull means that MicroProfile creates and evolves specifications without regard to downstream consumer requirements) . More details about it HERE

Further, on this week's zoom call, this community was happily informed by the Atlanta JUG & the Chicago JUG Communities that they will move forward on becoming Members of MicroProfile making it possible for MicroProfile to secure the WG requirement of 5 Members (IBM, RedHat & Tomitribe) to become an active group.  MicroProfile now can move to the final revision & adjustments of its Chapter draft 0.4 with the 2 new partners that will lead to the creation of the MicroProfile Working Group Agreement.  That call happened on Tuesday 11am-12pm PDT.  

Should you want to, you could quickly catch up on what currently has been accomplished in the past 6+ months via extra public & recorded Community and Working group hangouts which have led to the current WG Charter draft 0.4  with google forum thread conversations & Working Group blog: Towards MicroProfile 4.0


This message exists out of deep concern. 

This Tuesday we came out of that Community call that had close to 50 individuals in attendance with the 5 WG members moving us forward to the next WG steps.  
Yet, on Wednesday, July 7th at 4pm PDT a Eclipse Foundation call private-invite is sent to the Jakarta EE Steering Committee members listed on the PDF attached. Event titled: Discuss Forming a MicroProfile Working Group with 5 members of the Eclipse Foundation in attendance. 

Upon the arrival of that invite, I felt deeply sad, scared & unhappy that such actions by the Eclipse Foundation Director show a lack of care & disregard for this Community prefered #OSSprocesses.  
Further, what does the Jakarta EE WG has to do with the creation of the MPWG project?  Most of us have been direct on not wanting the MicroProfile project to be linked to the Jakarta EE project. This community even voted on it so that MicroProfile continues to be an independent & innovating ecosystem that moves on without regards for its customers requirements.  If Jakarta EE is a customer, then it applies to it as well. 

Lastly, when I consumed the 2020 EF yearly fiscal report 2020 Annual Eclipse Foundation Community Report under its Financial Section the Jakarta EE WG is written and formally being set up as the standard to follow of future Eclipse working Projects. 

Oracle transferred almost 20 years of JSRs into the Eclipse Foundation, that's not the norm. So why is it that in-coming projects need to use the Jakarta EE  "pay to play" to exist. Why is it that MicroProfile is being thrown into that arena?  

I bought myself 1 full day to think about where we are in this ecosystem as an active member in both communities I am deeply worry about the future of open source under the Eclipse Foundation.  

The zoom invite was sent to the Jakarta Steering Commitee via private and no email was sent to those individuals with the agenda. 
You as the representatives of the Board of Director please help us answer, what is the message that the EF management team wants this community, who have worked very tirelessly to understand with their latest action? 

I have stated multiple times before in the Jakarta EE Community forum & in this forum that every time I see a "private call" on the MicroProfile front deviate from what currently is, THIS or similar emails will be submitted. This is my stand that follows that open & repetitive feedback on the responsibility to protect Open Source. 

Copy/paste from the 2020 EF Report below: 
The Eclipse Foundation is incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA as a 501(c)6 not-for-profit. 

"Working group revenue growth grew in 2019, notably with the introduction of participation fees for Strategic members of Jakarta EE. Of note, the Strategic members of the Jakarta EE working group each committed to a minimum of three (3) years of funding to the working group. This is a first for working groups at Eclipse, and provides a funding model that enables the working group, and the Foundation in support of it, to make a significant, sustained investment in the working group’s objectives. This funding model has already been adopted in Q1 2020 by the Eclipse Cloud Development Tools working group and the Eclipse Sparkplug Working Group."

Attachment: Discuss Forming a MicroProfile Working Group.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Back to the top