[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed EE.next Working Group

This will not change the fact that committers have less votes than industry.

-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Dienstag, 6. Februar 2018 18:25
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed
EE.next Working Group

On 2018-02-06 12:07 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> https://www.eclipse.org/membership/exploreMembership.php#tab-associate
> shows, LJC, SouJava and other not-for-profit organizations like the 
> Meruvian Foundation by the late Frans Thamura are Associate Members 
> and even they (not to mention Individuals unless they pay at least 
> 1500$ to become a Solutions Member) would be prohibited.

We will discuss the idea of including JUGs. I've seen first hand what a
force for good LJC and SouJava have been on the JCP.

Individuals can participate at no cost if they are committers. Note that we
anticipate that the individuals involved in working on a spec will all be
committers on that spec project. So if you're on the future equivalent of an
expert group, you will be able to participate in EE.next as a committer

Mike Milinkovich
(m) +1.613.220.3223

ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit