Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-members-committers] Upcoming Vote of the Membership
Although I see no objection in principle to amending the clause for a restricted set of agencies, I would like to see addressed:
  • a much clearer definition of which agencies come under this amendment ("government agencies" sounds far too imprecise)
  • under which law would the agreement be interpreted for these agencies (there has to be one)?
  • if the membership involves exempted and non-exempted members, which law would apply to a dispute?
I suppose I'm slightly nervous allowing potentially very powerful members who end up not being bound by the membership terms at all.

Steve Powell          [M: +44-7815-838-558 H:+44-1962-775-598] 
  Every great art must be supplemented by leisurely discussion, by stargazing, if you will, about the nature of things.
Plato (Socrates in Phædrus)
pivotal.io|SpringSource|RabbitMQ 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't understand the question. Why would an organization which has already signed the agreement want to re-sign? 

Remember that the test here is that there is an absolute legal prohibition against the organization joining under the current terms. If they've already signed, then that's clearly not the case.

From: GERARD Sebastien 166342
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 4:46 PM
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Eclipse Membership and Committer List; Martin Lippert
Subject: RE: [eclipse.org-members-committers] Upcoming Vote of the Membership

In that case, will it be possible for already members to adopt these new possibilities?
De : Mike Milinkovich
Envoyé : ‎03/‎08/‎2015 18:45
À : Martin Lippert; Eclipse Membership and Committer List
Objet : Re: [eclipse.org-members-committers] Upcoming Vote of the Membership

On 03/08/2015 12:03 PM, Martin Lippert wrote:
> What are the implications for existing members of the foundation if such a government agency joins the foundation via amending the governing law in such a case?

None that I am aware of.

> Maybe something like a worst-case example scenario in which the New York state as the governing law would play a role (and what would happen then for those government agencies) would help me to understand this better.

Sorry, but I have no examples that I could competently explain. Our
membership agreement is a very simple document. In most cases we expect
that this would be a no-op. In any event, these types of concerns only
really become pertinent in the event of litigation, which seems very
unlikely.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-members-committers mailing list
eclipse.org-members-committers@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-members-committers

NOTICE: This mailing list is an aggregate of the following mailing lists:
eclipse.org-membership-at-large,eclipse.org-committers,
eclipse.org-project-leadership, eclipse.org-member-marketing.  The purpose of this list is to reduce the number of duplicate e-mails individuals will receive from these lists.  To be removed, please remove yourself from one of the primary mailing list or contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-members-committers mailing list
eclipse.org-members-committers@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-members-committers

NOTICE: This mailing list is an aggregate of the following mailing lists:
eclipse.org-membership-at-large,eclipse.org-committers,
eclipse.org-project-leadership, eclipse.org-member-marketing.  The purpose of this list is to reduce the number of duplicate e-mails individuals will receive from these lists.  To be removed, please remove yourself from one of the primary mailing list or contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.

Back to the top