|Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection|
you miss the point that individual contributos cannot become members, and that committer members do not have the same powers than paying members have. So what you actually express is simply a commitment to the pay-to-play rules of the EF, which is exactly what I dislike most with the EF. For me, the powers in the EF should get discoupled from the payments. In fact I am willing to donate money to the EF, but I am not willing to spend thousands of dollars just to gain the same rights.
âThe Communityâ is a broad constituency and I donât think any of us would claim to speak for the whole of the community.
Saying that I feel I have to speak up for the Eclipse Foundation here.
The Eclipse Foundation is a small approx. $6M annual budget https://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/reports/annual_report.php , not for profit, member supported organisation. There are many classes of membership open to both corporations, not for profits; vendors; end-users and individuals. The smallest fees for small companies is $1,500 per year to be a Solutions Member and $25,000 to be a Strategic Member with the same rights and representation as larger members. While these fees are not likely affordable for an individual, individual committers are still represented on the board and on the committees of the working group through committer elections. The Foundationâs governance is open https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/ and ran by members in accordance with its constitution. The membership fees drive the work of the Foundation.
Therefore if members of the community wish to make the rules and have control over the Eclipse Foundation and over JakartaEE the community is free to join the Eclipse Foundation, the JakartaEE WG and/or contribute to EE4J projects. I would encourage all out there that care passionately about Jakarta EE to get involved individually if you can. Alternatively if your employer is heavily dependent on JakartaEE technologies and wants control or influence over the Eclipse Foundation ask them to become members and participate.
Saying all that EE4J projects are governed by the Eclipse Development Process https://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php through open source rules of engagement and there are no fees to join the individual projects, contribute, become a committer and drive the overall technical direction through contributions.
thanks for clarification.
I think we all would be happy if simply you could confirm that the marketing team did not do any kind of "preselection" by other criteria than just *legal* issues. In particular, they did not rule out logos due to personal taste, style, or design choice. Right?
What the community expects is to have control over Jakarta EE (in the sense of making the rules for the EF, not the EF making the rules for the community). This includes that the EF asks the community *before* the EF acts. And with "community" I do not mean "only paying vendors" but also the majority of committers (even non-member committers).
On 2018-03-23 4:27 PM, Jason Greene wrote:
I read that differently. My interpretation is: They just eliminated candidates that failed to meet the design criteria, which did include a basic legal component. The next step is a more thorough legal analysis as well as a brand review from the foundationâs marketing team. From that process they will pick the strongest contenders. Both of these functions are pretty standard (Also really important for major industry marks) and based on expertise & analysis, and while we all have some biases, I seriously doubt this is driven by simple personal preferences.
This is correct. We removed the ones that did not meet the design criteria as stated in writing. This included removing the ones that we knew had legal issues. Now we are going to do more reviews, including deeper legal ones.
The community will have an opportunity to select from a number of options.
Is the concern more that there will be too few options and you guys might not like the Âoptions, or is it that there is some nefarious purpose? If itâs the latter what would they have to gain?
On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Richard Monson-Haefel <rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right. Some were removed for legal reasons but the rest was a subjective decision by the marketing team.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I understood the original mail in a way that from all submissions the EF
removed everything but left over only four due to a pre-selection by their
*marketing* team (not *legal* team).
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Heiko W. Rupp
Sent: Freitag, 23. MÃrz 2018 20:07
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
On 23 Mar 2018, at 18:35, Markus KARG wrote:
> I second that. The EF should simply remove those logos which are
> legally problematic, and then let the community vote for their
> favorite. This is a community project, and
Isn't that what
| > *Â ÂWe will hold a community vote to determine which of these
| > final candidate logos should be the chosen logo.
I understand Paul that the EF needs to (to quote you) "remove those logos
which are legally problematic", which is done by the marketing team, as they
know this process of removal best.
But then I may be wrong.
ee4j-community mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Java Champion, JCP EC/EG Member, EE4J PMC, JUG Leader