[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] [microprofile] Re: Requirements for compatibility logo usage
|
Since OSGi has set
a precedence for this (lack of a formal compatibility logo program), and
we can have individual component compatibility requirements (ie. similar
to Servlet or other Jakarta EE components), then maybe this approach should
be considered for MicroProfile. This would definitely allow us to
close out this action for 2021 and help us with defining the program plan
and budget for 2022. I think it's something to consider...
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)From:
"Paul
Buck" <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To:
"Microprofile
WG discussions" <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>Date:
10/26/2021
15:52Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [microprofile-wg] [microprofile] Re: Requirements for compatibility
logo usageSent
by: "microprofile-wg"
<microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Responding to microprofile-wg which
was list this thread originated on with Scott's initial post.Hi
John,
We
have heard from Red Hat and Tomitribe on their position on the requirement
of membership in the MicroProfile working group to be eligible to use the
compatibility logo. Not having a compatibility program and logo is an option
for the working group, and it is one that the Steering Committee can decide
by resolution.
As
I've always said, the Specification Process supports bonafide claims of
compatibility: run the TCK, pass the TCK, make your results public and
be in compliance with the Eclipse
Foundation TCK Licenseand you can make factual statements of compatibility. Also, in Jakarta
EE, implementations that are verified by a certification request to the
spec project can have their implementation listed as a Compatible Implementation
on spec's project page, seeServlet
Specification 5.0for example. Sounds like this is the approach being advocated by Red Hat
and Tomitribe for MicroProfile.
As
Steering Committee chair, can you please include the resolution in the
agenda for the next steering committee meeting and facilitate a vote? Alternatively
the ballot could be run on microprofile-wg list with Steering Committee
reps having binding votes. As a reminder, this vote would require only
a simple majority for approval.
Here's
the resolution text I'd use:
RESOLVED,
the Steering Committee confirms that the MicroProfile working group will
operate without a MicroProfile compatibility program and will not develop
and utilize a Compatibility logo for use by compatible implementations
of MicroProfile, and instead will allow any implementation that can make
bonafide claims of compatibility in accordance with the Eclipse Foundation
Specification Process to be listed and linked to as a compatible implementation
on its webpage.
Thanks
... Paul
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:58 PM John
Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:In
light of this, Red Hat prefers dropping the compatibility logo effort.
Requiring implementations to join Working Groups and pay fees feels like
we are reconstituting the JCP at the Eclipse Foundation. We think MicroProfile
would be better served by having a more community-oriented approach, like
a page for implementations that have passed the various TCKs.
On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 5:07:46
PM UTC-7 Paul Buck wrote:On the Marketing Team call earlier today
it was mentioned that the Eclipse Foundation's position on membership
in the MicroProfile working group as a requirement to being eligible to
use the compatibility logo was unclear. I am reposting here what I wrote
earlier in this thread:[Oct 1, 2021, 3:42 PM] "Our position
is that being a member of the working group is a requirement to use the
compatibility logo as well as passing the TCK and other requirements that
may be included in the trademark usage guidelines for the MicroProfile
Compatibility and Branding Program.Currently the MicroProfile working group
has one level of membership which is Corporate, MicroProfile could add
a low-cost, non-voting membership level for companies that just want access
to the compatibility and branding program, while keeping it no-charge for
open source projects. This can provide a cost effective option for companies
that are only interested in the logo."I do think it is pragmatic to proceed
now with a compatibility program that serves the current membership of
the working group. This is something we know how to do, and a good step
to take now. Especially given we hope to have a community selected compatibility logo
soon :-)Thanks ... PaulOn Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 5:05 PM Amelia
Eiras <aei...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thank you, Scott
for continuing the conversation via the Community and the Working Group
forum on initial thread Compatibility
Program: Membership requirements, if any. Hola MicroProfilers, On Monday during
the 1 off Marketing call with focus on the Program Plan 2021 with Trademark
tasks, call agenda and video here
, I
took the action to bring this topic back into a priority discussionfor the MicroProfile community to resolve. We
got this!!! As you, Scott nicely
stated on Sept 28th:What we are talking
about here is the additional compatibility branding program assets in websites
and product literature in addition to any factual TCK base compatibility
claims which can be made freely and without any MPWG requirement.First, website:
the MP Website is 100% managed by MicroProfilers. It doesn't require to
buy into EF Website Services for any products, this includes the Compatibility
Program page creation + more stuff associated with the Compatibility program.
Second, extra fees:a few of us want the MP Compatibility claim to be made without the MPWG
requirement. That means without a potential new adopter company being forced
to become an EF Member first. The feedback is that there is a deterrent
to comply with such membership requirements and the 2 pay- fees. Third, timing:the resolution of this topic ideally could be ideally completed in the
next few weeks so that we can finalize the MPWG Trademark Guidelines that
awaites this resolution and its currently under MicroProfilers care.
We won't hand the Guidelines to the legal EF ( thanks Paul for mediating)
until the draft is complete. Our wish is to avoid the waisful expenditure
of the $40K allocated to Trademark tasks. Aside from legal most of
the work is being completed by Microprofilers. That work does not include
the additional $13.5 allocated to the legal costs on the agreements that
are the sole responsibility to the EMO. -------Next step is to figure
out & negotiate with the EMO a compromise on this matter. Paul
is added to the TO. Whatever we do here
will improve the trademark processes in other Working Groups. Both the MPWG and
Community forums are added into this message, Amelia
Eiras twitter.com/ameliaeirasTribe: http://tomitribe.com
https://tribestream.io OSS: http://microprofile.io
https://jakarta.eeOn Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:42 PM Paul
Buck <paul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Jakarta is set up for e-signing, the
same could be done for MicroProfile. I have to look into if a click through
is viable. Now back to your originating topic for
this thread, as stated by the EMO ... “Our position is that being a member
of the working group is a requirement to use the compatibility logo as
well as passing the TCK and other requirements that may be included in
the trademark usage guidelines for the MicroProfile Compatibility and Branding
Program.” .Currently the MicroProfile working group
has one level of membership which is Corporate, MicroProfile could add
a low-cost, non-voting membership level for companies that just want
access to the compatibility and branding program, while keeping it no-charge
for open source projects. This can provide a cost effective option for
companies that are only interested in the logo.Thanks ... PaulOn Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:04 PM Scott
Stark <star...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Here is another approach that minimizes
the cost for both the EF and implementors.Instead of having a contract per compatible
implementation vendor regarding the usage of the compatibility logo, have
a publicly downloadable logo that includes the MicroProfile trademarked
name, and a click through terms of use download now button. This allows
for a scalable, user independent terms for both compatibility and trademark
registrations as the mechanism for enforcing proper usage.Maybe this is slightly weaker in terms
of not having one to one contracts, but it does have a fixed cost for the
establishment of the click through agreement. Presumably the bulk of such
an agreement already exists for other EF downloads.
On Sep 28, 2021 at 8:56:12 PM, Scott
Stark <star...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:A discussion has been going on in the
MP marketing group regarding the requirements around use of the MP compatibility
logo/brand. It started in this group thread:https://groups.google.com/g/microprofile/c/7RrQKXxjICA/m/YcCMIkSgAgAJAdditional context was in the marketing
meeting minutes:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fQWUiCInhJni8WhGt2k5WKqb8K6BuhzzWTzqynvX3_U/edit#Where the EMO states:“Our position is
that being a member of the working group is a requirement to use the compatibility
logo as well as passing the TCK and other requirements that may be included
in the trademark usage guidelines for the MicroProfile Compatibility and
Branding Program.”
Red Hat stated,
and Tomitribe agreed:"Red
Hat strongly disagrees with this position. In the same vein that TCKs should
not gate access to the patent grants associated with specifications, membership
in the working group should not gate access to who can certify an implementation.
If the EF cannot fund the associated management of the brand with the existing
budget, then make the costs explicit and add a line item to the budget
for it."In the "certify
an implementation" statement, we were considering the usage of the
MP compatibility branding assets as allowed based solely on passing the
TCK.On today's community
meeting we discussed other possibilities such as:- Start
with an MPWG requirement and see if deters usage.
- Start
without an MPWG requirement and see if the cost of maintaining the brand
program exceeds the budget.
- Have an
additional for pay usage of the branding
What we are talking
about here is the additional compatibility branding program assets in websites
and product literature in addition to any factual TCK base compatibility
claims which can be made freely and without any MPWG requirement.
So we need to
drive towards a resolution on this topic that can be voted on bye the Steering
Committee to close this topic.
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
micropr...@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
micropr...@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/3d5bba6b-54ee-4dee-8a9e-e6e75854da19n%40googlegroups.com._______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg