[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection

With this "impact" justification you could also say that Amazon, Google, Oracle and Microsoft should elect the next president of the USA, but not the average citizen anymore, as they pay way more taxes each, so any tax act would impact them much more than the average citizen.

-Markus

 

 

From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Roper
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. MÃrz 2018 05:52
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection

 

As I understand it, the decisions that are being made by these committees are the ones that most impact on the big vendors.

 

For example, one of the big responsibilities of these committees is to decide which projects become part of Jakarta EE. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the vendors who are then required to include an implementation of that spec in their platform. They need to not only add it (which may include implementing from scratch), they also need to document it for their platform, and then support it. In some cases we're talking about millions of dollars per spec that's added per vendor, maybe more.

What individual committer here releases and supports an entire Jakarta EE distribution? None. How much does a projects inclusion in Jakarta EE impact an individual committer? I don't think it really impacts them at all, except perhaps if they are involved in that project, it may give them a certain level of kudos. So, why should such an individual get a large say over what the vendors have to include on their platform when it has very little impact on them?

 

Even the logo affects the big vendors more, the primary purpose of the logo is to be a trademark that vendors can use to say that they are compliant with the spec - they will be putting this logo on their website, in their marketing materials, etc. For individuals committers, the logo serves comparatively little purpose.

 

So I think it makes perfect sense that the vendors have much more control over these committees than individual contributors, they are the ones who are most impacted by the decisions made by these committees, and also they have the most investment in Jakarta EE itself - being a strategic member for example requires having at least 4 people working full time on Jakarta EE.

 

Open Source isn't just about individuals working together, in fact it's rarely about just individuals working together. It's about all sorts of parties, including companies and individuals, working together. Very many open source projects are maintained and controlled primarily by one, or sometimes a few big companies. It's a model that works well. The nice thing about EE4J is that it is fundamentally a place where big vendors of platforms come together to collaborate, but in contrast to the JCP, the process is completely open, and at the project level, control has been turned into a regular open source model, where any individual can get involved and have a major influence. At the high level, it's primarily big companies that have the control, but that's not a bad thing. If they make bad decisions, it's going result in the committers at the project level ignoring them and not producing specs that they can include in their platforms, which is bad for them. Conversely, if at the project level, individual committers make bad decisions and are not producing specs that the vendors can include in their platforms, then the projects aren't going to be included in Jakarta EE and will consequently suffer in their uptake, which the committers generally don't work. The nice thing is that this relationship is formally acknowledged by who has control where in the EF, if we changed it so that the high level committees were primarily controlled by individual contributors, then if the individual contributors started making bad decisions on those committees, the vendors would just stop producing Jakarta EE implementations, with no formal process for managing and communicating that tension. Jakarta EE would then cease to have any meaning.

 

On 28 March 2018 at 10:06, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2018-03-27 2:36 PM, Werner Keil wrote:

Although Markus may sometimes express his point a little more drastically, he does have a point on this.

He did not ask about general Eclipse committer membership which is free. Out of the thousand or more committer members only one may be elected into some or all of the Jakarta EE WG committees, that seems given right now, unless the number changes slightly, but 1, 2 or 3 I am sure there won't be more representatives of "the community" if you include the odd JUG that can afford the 5k$ annual fee.


Your reference to "...the thousand or more committer members..." is bogus. That number is (I assume) a reference to the total of ~1500 current committers across all Eclipse projects. So far there are 103 EE4J committers, of which most work for member companies Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, Payara, Tomitribe, etc. There is somewhere around 10-ish individual committers in EE4J that will be represented by one seat on the spec and steering committees. Even if those numbers go up by 2 or 3 times as the rest of the projects roll in, the population to representation ratio is closer to 10:1 than 1000:1 on an order of magnitude basis.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



 

--

James Roper
Senior Octonaut

 

Lightbend â Build reactive apps!
Twitter: @jroper