|
Mike
Should these comments be factored into the Minutes for last
week's meeting? (I'm not sure if this should be considered
feedback on the Minutes, or if this is separate. I'm happy to
weave these back into that record, but I'm not sure what the
protocol is.
-- Ed
On 6/23/2018 5:58 AM, Mike Milinkovich
wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for sending this along. Answers to the numerous questions
are inlined below.
On 2018-06-21 12:15 PM, Ed Bratt wrote:
I am tardy with the steering committee minutes for this past
Tuesday's meeting. Adding my summary of the discussion from
Tuesday (will be forthcoming in my post of steering committee
meeting minutes);
Does this committee recommend this document for
publication? (+1 requested by by Mike)
Opened discussion by noting there is still debate about how
/ when IP rights are transferred (Dan). This does not appear
to be finalized yet. When does a contributor contribution
become transferred to the specification committee? When is
said contribution available by the committee to be
re-conveyed to a "user." What about various logistical
issues (members coming and going, long-lived specifications,
etc.). Currently outbound license is conveyed when
compatibility is demonstrated. Dan would like this to be
elaborated more carefully before initial publication.
I respectfully disagree that this must be elaborated before a
draft requirements document is published for community content. At
the pace we are going, it will be a long time before we reach
consensus on these points at the level of detail that Dan is
requesting, and further delay in getting community feedback is
unwarranted.
Scott suggested that there are related issues in other
committees (IP advisory committee as an example was
mentioned) that aren't being folded into this. Mike is the
effective Chair of the IP committee. Ian: Is IP
sub-committee membership legal reps? Paul isn't sure. (Scott
Peterson is rep. from Red Hat.)
No, the IP committee is not "...membership legal reps". The
Eclipse Foundation's Intellectual Property Advisory Committee is a
standing committee of the Board of Directors, established in our
Bylaws. It currently has 4 appointed members. You will note the
presence of legal experts from Oracle, Red Hat, and IBM. This
happy coincidence pre-dates the creation of Jakarta EE initiative.
- Ed Merks, elected Committer Representative
- Richard Fontana, Red Hat. Scott K. Peterson of Red Hat also
joins the calls as an invited expert.
- Donald Smith, Oracle. Jim Wright and Rob Orr also join the
calls as an invited experts.
- Terry Carroll, IBM
- I participate on the calls, as does the Eclipse Foundation's
counsel Jeffrey Neuburger. Wayne and Sharon attend as well.
Some consensus that having broader discussions between
active related committees would be useful. Paul pointed out
that IP advisory is a standing Eclipse Foundation committee.
(Sharon and Wayne both attend.) Ian raised concerns that
visibility into actions of this committee is difficult to
obtain.
The IP committee has been blocked for months on a couple of
points which are relatively minor compared to the entire scope of
what we are collectively working on. I agree that having a
combined workshop with the Spec Committee and the IP Advisory
Committee makes excellent sense. But at the moment I don't think
that it's worth anyone's time to do so.
Wayne confirmed that minutes are published.
That is incorrect. The committee keeps minutes, but we've never
published them anywhere that is publicly accessible.
Ian suggested that Minutes be made available for review.
(Wayne to look after this?)
Jakarta EE is not the only topic the committee discusses, although
lately that has been much of the effort. The minutes have never
been public because they describe some very complex legal issues,
and advice provided by attorneys. Sharing these types of
discussions publicly is generally considered a Very Bad Idea.
Dan reminds us that Lawyer/counsel detail is also necessary
for final document drafts. These, and several other
reservations about the document were noted. Ed observed that
it can be difficult to respond in writing to documents like
this. We agreed that this will be referred back to the
committee for further action, likely on Thursday.
This document in question is not in any way final. It is a draft
requirements document intended to solicit community feedback.
Steering Committee is not prepared to give +1 yet.
Hopefully my explanations above will help to achieve a +1 on
Tuesday.
Thanks.
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
