| Re: [jakarta.ee-community] [Required Fixes on the naming of Jakarta EE across its mediums] It is NOT Eclipse Jakarta EE =/ It is Jakarta EE |
This is a forward of the msg I sent today to that EF Committer, who is also one of the 19 individuals that form the EF Board of Directors:
START:
I appreciate you took the time to acknowledge my call out to the EF Committers mailing list.
Can you please forward this message to the Board of Directors' mailing list? Thank you!
Tracing:
Link of the Jakarta EE Community forum conversation with 811 subscribers HERE
Attached is the first page of the Jakarta EE Working Group Agreement (version dated/completed on December 17th, 2018 as v2) that 6 of us signed in 2019 with the proper name of the Jakarta EE Project.
It is not about the Eclipse Agreements "templates."
The chosen insert of the Eclipse preceding the formal name of the Jakarta EE project listed via the Foundation public HERE agreements is a direct violation of the Project Registered Marks.
This is a violation executed by the entity that is meant to protect and fight against such breaches in the first place.
The future is being shaped NOW; the present is NOW.
To that effect, Hola Board of Directors,
Now, writing to you in the Jakarta EE side of the spectrum. I thank you for your time, for zooming into the Jakarta EE project.
It has become clear via the Eclipse Foundation management actions that there exists a conflict of interest regarding what is good for the community compared to what is suitable for the Foundation.
Suppose the Foundation continues to refuse to protect the Jakarta EE Trademarks, how can the Project or other Eclipse projects (+375) expect the Foundation to do THE job they signed up for when dealing with future external potential Trademark violators? House inventory & clean-up start from the inside; it must mirror its truth via actions that show as the shining light in the dark.
The trademark violation is grave, corrections have been asked since early June, yet we are still here. The failure to adjust the wrongs/mistakes/oversights is a display for everyone to see in this forum and the Foundation mailing of +2100 EF Committers.
Every Working Group coming into existence or migrating into the Foundation is "trusting" the Foundation to uphold its core values. Let's focus on 1 of them: the Eclipse governance model that nicely ensures that no single entity (Member) controls a project it contributes. That includes the Foundation itself.
Though it ought to be enough for the Foundation to via hands-free facilitator mentality & mojo to foster healthy environments, where its old and new communities come together to create & help adopt valuable technologies, THAT SEEMS NOT TO BE THE CASE.
The Foundation's actions aim at trying to manage/take charge/take control of the strategy/ the policies/the operations of some of its projects. The foundation is doing its best to secure and fight for such power.
What I see at each corner of the Working Group process that I am involved in and those of a few others, is that we seem to be regressing by force to match the "hidden Foundation's goals" as a set priority.
That is not working well, as you have well seen the MicroProfile message and this thread.
The public & constant perfecting of the message that "the foundation always acts in the best interests of its community" is a facade when we pay attention to the actions in plain sight.
I don't take enjoyment in pulling in the Foundation Committers (all 2100 of them), however IT IS my last resource as nothing else seems to work. In the Jakarta EE project, it has been +2 years of many of us trying our best to hold on to open-source values. Many of us continue to apply as much patience and yes attitude - we can fix stuff with positive energy.
But why would we need to be required to continue THIS fight to protect the project and our community against the Foundation' self interests?
I am loyal to showing up, to doing things I wish were not necessary but owning if I must b/c this project matters to me. This project wellbeing matters to implementations, IDEs/Cloud Vendors, users...
None is above receiving feedback. The shield must be down to enable growth and betterment.
Every time feedback is given if logic with proof protects such an input, merit to listen and a follow up to see the changes put into effect with the fixes matter greatly.
If the complacent mentality goes ON to the continued belief that everything is OK at the Foundation... in 5years, those who are reading this thread, capturing these messages yet choosing to do nothing--- will be TOO LATE to do step-in by then. The future is being shaped NOW; the present is NOW.
The Foundation WG concept is new. I foresee many of the already housed + 375 projects pushing IP to be placed into the requirement to join the WG initiative...
We learn by doing stuff on new initiatives. Some truths are meant to be learned and are meant to be repeated just once during the process. Iterations to push fairness is everything with new initiatives that are intended to become a standard to follow.
The continued lack of ownership of "oversights" puts at risk the future of every committer, contributor & Project at the Foundation. It is not enough to make a mistake & to try quickly to hash it away.
It is imperative to acknowledge WHY/WHEN/HOW the mistakes are made, stepping to have the courage to correct them on the spot without perfecting excuses.
It is a simple choice, it takes a formidable simple leader to do what is right. That one, who chooses to lead him/herself and the team & community to prevail against the cheap contributing possible outcomes of "cheaply patching stuff on the fly" to try faking the "I am awesome, you cannot touch me, I am that good" for the sake of:
1) being allowed to do so
2) being able to lie to the self without repercussions in plain sight
3) while at it, disrespecting the tasks and goals entrusted
It is not my job nor the job of contributors & committers to continually remind the Foundation that doing what is right, HANDOFF-- prevails as it will benefit the Foundation in the long run.
BUT it is the Foundation Board of Directors' job to police what must be held dear, the values & reasons for the existence of the Foundation.
Bare minimum Recommendations:
Once those check-balances are in place, messages like this one won't be needed anymore because there will be a formal public outlet that enables the Working Groups to get their voices OUT to everyone in the Foundation. We belong, we care--you can enable us to show it with formal tracing without hushes.
--- This message, starting from the Tracing section will be a part of the public thread.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:01:34PM +0200, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
> All projects within the Eclipse community are formally named
> "Eclipse xyz". It is a part of our trademark policy and branding
> strategy. In practice this means that the full name must be used in
> formal documents, but it does not stop you from using simply "Jakarta
> EE" or just "Jakarta" in other documents or in daily speak. There are
> many examples of this from other projects. How to properly reference
> Eclipse projects is also well described in the Eclipse Project
> Handbook [1]. It is quite liberal, with the exception for formal
> documents. I hope and think this approach will work also for you.
And just for completeness/comparison, it's pretty much the same over at
the Apache Software Foundation, where the official project names - and the
first mention of each project - are Apache Maven, Apache Commons, and yes,
Apache TomEE.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community