Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Recent Edits

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2018-05-29 2:34 PM, Scott Stark wrote:

I think I'm disagreeing with your logic as I did not see that your example called out that in order for a corporate developer that changes companies to remain on the spec working group would require an update of the participation agreement. So SMS is working on the security spec as a Red Hat developer at one point, then SMS starts working for Microsoft. SMS is required to inform the working group of the change, and in order to continue to participate, provide an updated working group agreement.

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough on this point. But yes, you and I are in agreement that an updated working group agreement would absolutely be required in such a case.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Scott - So I think what you're saying is that you agree with both my logic and my conclusions. Agreed?

Ivar - Yes, communication is key. But it is now crystal clear in my mind why this is absolutely necessary, which will certainly help me explain it to others. This is not about "pay to play". This is about maximizing the permissions given to the community. That is a very different ethical rationale we can use when explaining it.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223