| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Recent Edits |
I believe changes to the Eclipse Development Process require approval by the Eclipse Board, so if a rule change is necessary it would need to be proposed to the board. Whether or not an exception can be made for just the EE4J Working Group or if the change would need to apply to all Working Groups, I do not know.
If the rules germane to this issue cannot be changed, than instead of a rules change it could be considered a “courtesy” that is commonly extended to companies whose whose employee, elected as a committer, has ended their employment with that company. For example:
Project X has 10 committers with names (A, B, C ... J). Committer B worked for ACME Company when elected to a Specification Project. When Committer B is nominated they declare that although they are individual they also are an official representative of ACME Company. This proclamation is not binding in anyway, but is simply informative part of the nomination.
Committer B announces that they are leaving the ACME Company to become independent but will sign a new Committers Agreement as an Independent (or their new company will sign one) and will stay on Project X. The ACME Company makes a request that another employee, Ms. K, me nominated as a committer to Project X. The Project Lead, as a courtesy to the ACME Company, can choose to nominate Ms. K. The vote is taken according to normal Eclipse Development Handbook and Ms. K is either elected a committer or not.
That's a start, but that makes it clear we're inventing new rules for Spec Projects that are different than any other Eclipse project. Is there a better way to "overlay" the Spec Project rules on top of the existing Project rules?
Richard Monson-Haefel wrote on 05/23/18 02:34 PM:
Good point. Here is a counter proposal:
In addition to accepting individuals to a Specification Group, the group lead or the group can nominate/elect (or whatever) a representative of an organization. If the represenative leaves that organization, the organization can nominate a replacement represenative. The original representative can remain on the Specification Group as an individual or perhaps representing some other company, but the company that originally invested in that represenative has the right to nominate a new represenative. The newly nominated represenative can be subject to a vote by the group. That way the organization that lost the represenative has the oppourtunity to maintain its place at the table but is not an automatic “pay to play” contributor.
I think that protects the investment made by the organization when it has payed the representative salary and gave that time to the Specification Group without making it a “pay to play” situation. So there can be individual group members and organizational group members.
--On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:00 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Monson-Haefel wrote on 05/23/18 07:28 AM:
Depending on the membership level, an organization should automatically get a seat on any specification project they want but should excercise self-restraint to focus on those specifications germane to their products. Why, for example, should a company become a strategic member if it cannot have a seat at the table?
So, if you pay then you can play?
What about the people who don't pay?
At the JCP, the Spec Lead would decide whether an expert was qualified to be on the expert group. We ran into quite a few people who clearly only wanted to be on an expert group so that they could add that to their resume. We rejected many of those people.
If "expert group members" are Committers on a Spec Project, who qualifies the Committers? After the Project is created, I assume it would be the Project Lead. Before the Project is created, is it just the person who proposes the project? And you're suggesting that the Project Lead would have no choice but to accept any Committer proposed by a paying Member?