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

Even with this changed model, in the end still the committers are the ones who do the most work but have least to say in the committees, and still contributors might do a lot of work and have no seat in the committees at all.

I think a model with elected seats purely based on democratic votes would be best, without any fixed paid seats at all, where only committers and contributors have a right to vote, but paying members may nomitate themselves for a seat in that democratic election.

-Markus

 

From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ondrej Mihályi
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. März 2018 10:18
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection

 

Werner,

 

Your numbers aren't correct. The charter as of now says that each committee has "at least" one seat for committer members. That means one or more per committee and not at most one as you wrote. Mike has clarified that the expected number of non-vendor committers and collaborators is "tens" rather than "thousands" so it should be fine.

 

But I like Guillermo's suggestion to specify a ratio for committer members. E.g. it could be a range from 10%-20% and there would always be at least one seat for a committer member as is proposed now.

 

The current charter states for most committees that:

- each strategic partner (mostly big vendors) has a seat (I expect around 4)

- at least 2 seats for influencers (enterprise or strategic Eclipse members)

- at least 1 seat for participants (enterprise, strategic and solution members)

- at least 1 seat for committers

 

That would be at least 7 non-committer seats. With 7 non-committer seats, 10-20% would mean there is only 1 committer member (2 out of 9 is more than 20%). WIth 8 non-committer seats that would be 1-2 committer members (2 out of 10 is exactly 20%).

 

Cheers,

Ondro Mihályi

Senior Payara Service Engineer
Payara Server – Robust. Reliable. Supported.
E: ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx | T: +1 415 523 0175 | M: +421 902 079 891

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payara Services Limited, Registered office: Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | www.payara.fish | info@xxxxxxxxxxx |
@Payara_Fish


From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 28 March 2018 08:03:40
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection

 

Don't want to go into number discussions, but we all know there will be a lot of contributions from non commiter, mostly individual people.

 

The vendor commiter/individual committer ratio might be around 10:1, but the community contributing to the project will be much larger than its commiter count.

 

Anyway, as I said, this concerns can be easily mitigated by defining a ratio where (just an example) every 5 vendor commiters, there's an elected individual. That ensures the community will always have the same amount of control even in the case lots of vendors begin interested on the project (hope that comes a reality!).

 

Do you think that could be feasible?

 

 

Regards,

 

Guillermo González de Agüero

 

El mié., 28 mar. 2018 a las 1:06, Mike Milinkovich (<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:

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