John,Overall, I think
your minutes were pretty accurate. Thanks for doing this!
- I agree with Amelia
that we should probably identify that the first 15 min was used to discuss
the recording vs non-recording of meetings.
- I do not agree
that we need a two week notice for non-recording of meetings. I think
one week is plenty sufficient. But, we didn't agree on a length of
time. We just indicated that some notice is required (as John documented).
- BTW, Scott pointed
out that any member of the steering committee can request the non-recording
of a meeting (or a portion thereof) without any notice.
- I like the specification
of the Goal of the presentation. We as a working group need to decide
on one of two patent licenses -- Implementation Patent or Compatible Patent.
- Jakarta EE currently
does operate under the Compatible Patent license. The Jakarta EE
WG is currently discussing these options and how they might apply to the
various Jakarta EE projects, but Jakarta EE currently operates with the
Compatible Patent license. (Since this was discussed during the meeting,
I see no problem with leaving this in the minutes.)
- Paul asked for
a straw poll just to get a reading on the MP working group. If the
straw poll shows a definite favorite, then maybe the formal vote will be
easier. If we're split on the straw poll, then more investigation
and discussion will be required before the formal vote. That's how
I read the request for a straw poll.
- Since we (MPWG)
are negligent on selecting this patent license, I'm sure that EF does not
want this to be dragged out. We should start with this straw poll
idea and then decide on our plan of attack at our next meeting in two weeks.
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)From:
WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
Re: [microprofile-wg] MPWG_SCR Approval of April 27th Steering Committee
Meeting Minutes. Request vote by May 6thSent
Thank you, John for
sending the draft minutes for review & follow up. Recommended the follow
adjustements to the minutes:
the 2 patent options:An efficient analysis
of Implementation Patent with its Pros & Cons is necessary and was
recommended in the call.An efficient analysis
of Compatible Patent with its Pros & Cons is necessary and was
recommended in the call.Been years, yet I
don't believe the Jakarta WG voted nor chose its patent. I recommend the completely
removal of the Jakarta EE patent mention from this minutes. It is
not an actual example of past work on EF Patent selection. Straw poll request:
We actually didn't agree to vote on it in 2 weeks. At least not without
discussion (analysis) first. When providing examples
of other Communities and their current work on Patents, can we please
use the actual links or videos that shows those communities conversations.
Hearsay ought to be avoided in all topics, specially legal. -- Thanks, Amelia
Eiras twitter.com/ameliaeirasTribe: http://tomitribe.com
https://tribestream.io OSS: http://microprofile.io
https://jakarta.eeOn Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:24 PM John
wrote:Meeting Minutes link,
contents pasted below, and pdf copy attached.Meeting Minute Updates
- time: Presentation
and soft Q&A took the 1hr, not 30mins
- Recording issue:
The EMO would have no presented the topic if call was recorded. for
15 minute the members discussed issues with lack of recordings and concern
about the lack of it. It was agreed that if any EMO presentation cannot
be recorded, the MPWG must be made aware 2 weeks before the call.
- Topic: the
EMO Presented to the MPWG a 20 pg Patent Licences in the Context of
- Goal: to enable
the MPWG to choose 1 of the currently 2 patent choices under the EF:
Implementation or Compatible Patent
- Additional linkunder minutes resources: EF
Intelectual Property Policy needs
to be included.
DO NOT EDIT OR COMMENT ON THE ORIGINAL
MEETING MINUTES.Thanks.MicroProfile Steering
Committee Meeting - April 27th, 2021
- Link to twitter picture added.
- Link to presentation added.
- I added bulleted discussion points. I
did the best I could with what I recalled since we were petty busy discussing
and not taking live notes.
Tweeted pic here,
recordinghere, meeting minutes folder here
NOT EDIT AGENDA. This is the responsibility of the meeting moderator with
input from the steering committee and community. Agenda items should be
discussed in the mailing list/forum or in prior Steering Committee meetings
comments occur in mailing lists/forums.
editing is enabled for community to add themselves to list of community
contributors during call
(Quorum = 6)
JUG - Summers Pittman, Vincent Mayers|
Fujitsu - Kenji Kazamura
IBM - Kevin Sutter,
Jelastic - Ruslan Synytsky,
Garden State JUG -
Chandra Guntur, Michael Redlich
Oracle - Ed Bratt,
Payara - Rudy De
Red Hat - John Clingan,
Tomitribe - David Blevins,
Committer Member: Edwin
meeting minutes approval||Approved
since last Steering Committee Meeting|
Patent Options Discussion|
Limited to 30 minutes
since sharing time on the Live Hangout
- Compatible Implementation
Policy - protects against fragmentation and patents become a legal enforcement
approach to compatibility. The Spark Plug community discussed this being
a barrier to adoption.
- Patent license - implementations
that do not have to 100% pass the TCK. This approach favors adoption over
compliance. Whether or not an implementation is compatible becomes a legal
- Only one patent license
policy applies per spec project. MicroProfile specifications are managed
under a single project. Theoretically, if MicroProfile split specs into
separate projects, each project could choose its patent policy with approval
by the Steering Committee.
- Is there a 3rd option
- Collective Defense? Currently not an option.
- Paul noted that Jakarta
EE working group chose the compatible implementation license and that the
Spark Plug working group is in discussion on IP patent policy.
- Paul recommended a
straw poll vote to understand where we stand as a working group. We agreed
to give it two weeks. This would be followed up by a formal vote on one
of the two (draft) resolutions outlined in the presentation.
- We agreed that Steering
Committee members must be notified of non-recorded meetings ahead of time.
Steering Committee call||See
microprofile-wg mailing listmicroprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit