|Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Jakarta EE Working Group Charter requires attention] Committee Calls "private" vs "public" + Misc|
I respect your position and understand the issues you bring up. But I think, these can be solved. If your fear is really just about disturbing the discussion, we could simply have an auto-muted loop for the public ("listening only"), which is linked by a single line into the stakeholder's discussion loop. In the end this is just tech questions, and should not be the major driver in such a political decision. For me, the image benefit of being fully open is worth discussing it. BTW, I don't care what Apache does or does not. We are Eclipse, not Apache v2, and we should discuss and find our own ways.
So can any Apache Committer at any time join calls of the Apache Board???
If not, then why the heck should it be different here in Eclipse WG or similar calls (including the Board ones)?
There is not much Point in hundreds of People joining e.g. the Steering or Specification Committee call and for the Marketing Committee where Amelia Comes from that did not even find a single committer representative to fill it, so why should committers there suddenly want to join its call?
Most activities in the Steering or Specification Committee are Voting on items like new specs or similar duties. Much like what the Apache Foundation Board does. It invites ONE (not the entire Team ;-) representative of certain Projects at most, I also know, we do that in the Spec Committee some times when there is something to report or discuss. If e.g. Markus had news about JAX-RS, I don’t think he would be prevented, but not an "open house" for everyone. Because not only the Quorum for decisions would be made difficult if (ever) dozens or hundreds of non-members would join such a call.
The cost may be less of an issue for the number of participants but the overhead for Eclipse Foundation.
Beside Zoom also seems to require a passcode for all its calls to avoid hijacking and Zoom-bombing and where you would put that passcode out on a public place, the Purpose is perverted and you might as well have None at all.
For public calls that happen quite often (probably Monthly) where everyone is welcome and able to join, These passcodes could be posted upfront, but for the regular calls that happen currently Weekly (Spec Committee) they are valid for some time and sharing them with everyone would require them to be issued every week which is even more burden and effort for Eclipse Foundation.
Plus the majority of People who really would like to join a call can Benefit more from the platform call, so why not use that instead of disrupting and effectively slowing down the Jakarta EE Specification Process only to then have the same folks cry constantly "Jakarta EE is dead and slow“? ;-/
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Back to the top