Skip to main content

[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 15:52
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [microprofile-wg] [microprofile] Re: Requirements for compatibility logo usage
Sent 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 ... Paul


On 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/ameliaeiras
Tribe: http://tomitribe.com     https://tribestream.io  
OSS:  http://microprofile.io     https://jakarta.ee




On 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 ... Paul


On 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/YcCMIkSgAgAJ

Additional 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:
  1. Start with an MPWG requirement and see if deters usage.
  2. Start without an MPWG requirement and see if the cost of maintaining the brand program exceeds the budget.
  3. 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




Back to the top