Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [microprofile-wg] [Travel Budget for Committer Rep] Contradicts with the EF Bylaws
Gotcha, Paul. I appreciate the learning about this with the actual text. Thank you. 

Scenario A: 
What would happen if a Work Group Sponsor wishes to donate to a WG of its liking and ask for that money to be allocated solely to support the Committer Rep travels?   
Working Group Sponsorship Agreement the 2 page agreement is pretty fantastic. It is just as good as the 2 page Employer Consent agreement.💪 

Page 2 copy/paste:

All sponsorship funds will be included in the working group’s annual budget, which is under the direction of the working group’s steering committee. While sponsorship funds are not earmarked for any particular expenditure, stated intentions by Sponsors for the use of their funds are welcome and the steering committee will endeavor to satisfy those intentions.

"stated intentions" by Sponsors is the most important statement on the paragraph. The Sponsor wishes X, the Steering cmtee tries to accomplish X. The EF's job is to support the WG Steering Cmtee by together working to improve processes and by doing so adjusting stuff not yet in the system for the WG program.  Specially when we refer to money $$$ investments. 

If the stated intentions of a WG are to wish to support its Committer Rep, case in point MP. An individual who is not a hired EF individual paid by the project,  how can we share such request with the Board of Directors so that the discussion gets to that body, who is the sole responsible of evaluating the changing the EF Bylaws? 

PS: For example, we helped change the WG Membership requirement that asked for Organizations to become EF Strategic members when Java EE got moved to the foundation. It took us 8 months.  The board voted +1 at the end making it so now Contributing Members can join, making JUGs be able to become founding members of any WG as well b/c the bar to entry is financially more reachable.  

With this example, I wish to show the improvements that has been possible while the navigation of the WG and that positively changed the Bylaws. 



On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 5:33 AM Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, please see page 9, section 6.9 of the Bylaws:

6.9 Each Member agrees to bear all of its own costs and expenses related to its membership as defined in the Eclipse Foundation Membership Agreement and in connection with the performance of its rights and duties in respect of the Eclipse Foundation, including, without limitation, compensation of its employees, travel and living expenses associated with the Members participation in any meeting or conferences called in the framework of the activities of the Eclipse Foundation. Any Developer (as defined in 3.1. f) of these Bylaws) employed by, or acting as a contractor for, a Member to work on Eclipse Technology Projects will be fully compensated by that Member and not by the Eclipse Foundation.


On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 5:34 PM Amelia Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello EMO, 

Today's during the MPWG 2022 budget discussion (minutes), we had a "wish" item in the budget spreadsheet  support for the Committer Represantitive in the form of fixed Travel budget. 

It was pointed out that doing so is not aligned with the EF Bylaws. 
Can you please direct us to the section and page (out of 47 pages) where we can find that information?

Thank you, 
 

Back to the top