|Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed EE.next Working Group|
Just clarifying what I believe are some incorrect statements here;
âIn your definition, there cannot be Java EE implementations provided by non-paying members, which clearly rules out some existing initiativesâ
First these implementation wonât be Java EE as that brand will not be managed by the Eclipse Foundation. Second the charter doesnât say this it says âReview and approve the trademark policy to ensure compatibility of independent implementations of specificationsâ. My understanding is that all specifications, and TCKs will be open source and therefore you can implement them freely.
Also the FAQ makes it clear that these committees do not set project direction. That is for the committers on the projects themselves and they are elected via the Eclipse Development process https://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php .
You asked for feedback on the proposed charter. I completely dislike the idea of separate membership levels, particularly the fact that industry will per definition have more votes than committers. The motto should be "one man, one vote" and not "one paying vendor, four non-elected seats". The explanation in the FAQ is wrong: "Strategic members are the vendors that deliver Java EE implementations. As such they are typically putting in the largest number of contributors, and are leading many of the projects." First of all, strategic members not necessarily are providing anything; the simply pay a lot of $. In your definition, there cannot be Java EE implementations provided by non-paying members, which clearly rules out some existing initiatives. Looking at some JSRs I need to say that there had been some EGs where more work had been done by individuals than by strategic members. Also, there are Java EE implementations provided by small companies which cannot or do not want to pay thousands of $. What you currently plan is not in the best interest of the Java universe, but in the interest of particularly big industrial vendors only. This is not what I or JUGs want. We want power in the hands of democratically elected people, but not in the hands of the industry. This will make funding harder, but democracy should be worth it. Please change the charter so only elected individuals can serve, serving will be free always, and there will not be any membership levels.
Eclipse Foundation Members,
The proposed charter  for this working group is available for review. If you have any comments or feedback on the proposed charter, please send to ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx. All Members of the Eclipse Foundation are invited to join and participate in this working group. Based on the feedback and level of interest, the working group will be officially created in March 2018.