| Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Jakarta EE Working Group Charter requires attention] Committee Calls "private" vs "public" + Misc |
For me, the image benefit of being fully open is worth discussing it.
_______________________________________________Eclipse unlike Apache has turned itself into a Specifying organization with those WGs, hence you may rather look at OASIS or the JCP just to take a few and I am not aware any of them have public calls for everything, thus there must be reasons, and unless Eclipse Foundation had a few areas where they believe they can be more open or scale by allowing a couple of more people in such calls, the reasons why these don't do it might be equally valid.I mentioned earlier that if there are no reasons they cannot do that, the first thing EF might explore very easily is to create recordings either audio or video and make them available in a proper place like a YouTube channel. That with delay would pretty much serve the same purpose as a "listen-only" channel but it would likely cost Eclipse less because whether they speak or not, every attendee of the call costs with Zoom, and if you plan for more it can easily cost a lot. Spec Committee calls are weekly now, so the cost would be every week instead of just monthly with a much higher volume. Recording a call should be possible with no cost at all. And people could watch or listen to that asynchronously. If that shows in the stats that there is such a high demand, then maybe as a next step a passive channel could be an option, but why not go step by step and find out how many people really listen to it? ;-)Werner
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:59 PM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:_______________________________________________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.
-Markus
Von: jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jakarta.ee-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Werner Keil
Gesendet: Montag, 24. August 2020 12:41
An: Jakarta EE community discussions
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-community] Jakarta EE Working Group Charter requires attention] Committee Calls "private" vs "public" + Misc
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“? ;-/
Werner
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:21 PM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I want to pick up this thread originally started by Amelia some weeks ago.
My opinion is that in an open source community, all communication should be public, including project leadership and management discussions. This certainly includes the Jakarta EE Committee calls. I do not see any reason to frequently have private communication. There might be single events where secrets MUST be kept, but these are just exceptional cases -- not vice versa. Keeping all other communication private imposes "a bad code smell" on our organization.
So I propose an official voting among all stakeholders whether to stop this privacy immediately OR whether to clearly explain the NEED for it.
Thanks
-Markus
Hola Jakartees,
With August, new opportunities/new challenges/ more contributing to Jakarta EE could bring many of us closer!
As such, I ask:
Why are the Jakarta EE Committee calls still private in 2020?
At the beginning when the Jakarta EE Charter was being drafted in Feb 2018 (please see below the Carter history), those of us involved understood that the need for private calls on the 3 committees was required due to the on-going Java EE legal trademark conversations between Oracle & the EF. Everyone knows the end-result of those talks by reading Jakarta EE Rights to Java Trademarks published on May 3rd, 2019
The vision everyone has in mind were to establish as much transparency, accountability, ownership, and earn-protect trust by having public calls. By everyone, I mean everyone currently listed under the Strategic Membership, who was also a member of the initial Organizations supporting the initiate under the Proposal WG lifecycle (step 2 for the creation of a WG under the EF). We agreed that the calls will be converted to public as soon as the legal talks were completed.
Well, they were finalized on May 2019. It has been +1 year and I am wondering why those meetings are still private today.
Only the 6 orgs can vote to change what current is. It is that easy based on what was agreed on the past.
If something change, lets explain what change and what keeping what currently is serves best for the Jakarta EE project and its community.
The current private Body calls violate the Jakarta EE Vision and Scope listed as number #7:
- Establish and drive a funding model that enables this working group and its community to operate on a sustainable basis.
How can the Community of Contributors help establish and drive a "funding model" that is sustainable if the Community is not invited into the room to own such a conversations?
I recommend that the Steering committee body address this issue of the Charter via this open forum.
-----
If anyone cares to read the Jakarta EE Charter, the brainstorming bare minimum for such those Body meetings is still written as follows for:
Steering Committee Meetings
- Charter requirement: at least twice a year
- 2020 Reality: every Tuesday 9:30am-10:30am PDT
Specification Committee Meetings
- Charter requirement: at least once per quarter
- 2020 Reality: twice per month on Wednesdays 9am-10am PDT
Marketing Committee Meetings
- Charter requirement: at least once per quarter
- 2020 Reality: twice per month on Thursdays 8am-9am PDT
- Jakarta EE Release phase: the body meets every week.
----
Tracing to understand what went down when Java EE was moved into the Eclipse Foundation - zoom out:
During the Jakarta EE WG lifecycle status:
1. Opportunity= private> Conversations btw Oracle and EF
2. Proposal=public> gather-together into the ONE group potential Members & Contributors alike with a minimum of 3 Organizations
3. Incubation=public > within the success criteria check list, the requirement of a minimum of 5 Organizations goes
4. Operational =public
The Jakarta EE WG Charter section Membership lists five Bodies: Strategic, Enterprise, Participant, Committer, and Guest.
Charter revision is as follows:
Amelia Eiras
Tribe: http://tomitribe.com https://tribestream.io
OSS: http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.ee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
jakarta.ee-community mailing list
jakarta.ee-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-community
Hüseyin Akdoğan |
