I had a little chat with Ian Craggs this morning to clarify things.
Given that everything Ian does on the Sparkplug specification project is on behalf of HiveMQ, he is covered by HiveMQ's working group membership and member contributor participation agreement in that scope of work. Crucially, this does not include Ian's work on Paho, on other Eclipse projects or on the Eclipse IoT PMC.
As Wayne suggested, the best way to establish proper separation between "Ian-Craggs-as-an-individual" and "Ian-Craggs-as-HiveMQ" is for Ian to create and use a second Eclipse account for his work on Sparkplug. Since Ian will identify HiveMQ as his employer in this account, HiveMQ will get credit for Ian's contributions to the project. Ian C agreed with that approach and will take action accordingly.
You are right, Ian S, to highlight the fact that the Sparkplug Working Group charter does not have provisions for committer members. This is something the Sparkplug steering committee can decide to add to the charter at any time but also implies the existence of a specific participation agreement. We can discuss the idea at the next meeting of the committee.
Best Regards,
Frédéric DESBIENS
Program Manager, IoT and Edge Computing | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Ian C will be a contractor for HiveMQ in the work he is doing on the Sparkplug spec project, so can he participate under HiveMQ's membership? Alternatively, it doesn't look like Sparkplug allows for individual committer members. I am thinking this might have been an oversight in the working group charter. If you agree, how do we change this?
In order to be a committer on a specification project, the developer must either work for an organization that is a member of the working group or be an individual member of the working group themselves.
I am a bit confused by your statement that Ian does not need to be part of the working group. The Eclipse Foundation Specification process says that all committers need to be covered by a WOrking Group Participation Agreement. How is Ian supposed to be covered by a WG agreement if he isn't a member?
As of this morning, three PMC members gave a plus +1 to approve the election. That's already a majority. I expect the EMO will ratify the result very soon.
Best Regards,
Frédéric DESBIENS
Program Manager, IoT and Edge Computing | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
Working group membership is not required to make
contributions to the Sparkplug specification project or even
to become a committer on it.
Currently, the Sparkplug WG charter does not include the
concept of a committer member; however, this is something the
steering committee could add to accommodate cases like yours.
I wonder if this is something that working groups should add
automatically when they add specifications to their scope.
Wayne: I think there is some confusion here about
specification projects, specification committees and working
groups. Do you think we should hop on a call with Ian Skerrett
and Ian Craggs to understand what they are looking for
and suggest a way forward?
Best,
Frédéric DESBIENS
Program Manager, IoT and Edge Computing | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
I confess to not being familiar with the Eclipse
specification process, so I'm not sure how things are
expected to work. The principal reason that Dominik
nominated me was to take advantage of my experience of
working on the MQTT and MQTT-SN specifications at OASIS.
I was secretary as well as a voting member for the MQTT
5.0 specification and am currently co-chair of the MQTT-SN
specification committee. Apart from my experience in the
specification process, SparkPlug is also related to MQTT
so there are two levels of connection.
The main goal is to allow my full participation in the
specification process for SparkPlug, attending working
group meetings, and being able to vote on any resolutions,
as well as contributing documentation updates and
software.
I looked at the membership prospectus for the working
group
(https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/5413615/sparkplug-member-prospectus%202020.pdf)
and concluded that I could join as an individual
participant member for the fee of $500 (and signing the
participation agreement). But then Ian Skerrett checked
with the Eclipse organization (I don't know who), and
suggested this committer election route as a result.
Obviously I don't need to be a committer to submit PRs to
the project, which I am quite happy to do. It is
membership of the working group that I'm aiming for. I
don't know if those are different things or not.
Ian
On 09/12/2020 03:52, EMO EMO wrote:
There is precedent for using established
expertise in a related field as the criteria for a
committer election. This is, IMHO, especially true for
specification projects. As specification projects are
industry expert groups, past contributions elsewhere
that establish an individual's credentials in the domain
area should be taken into consideration when determining
merit.
I am having a bit of concerns approving this
request.
I am definitely not doubting the achievements
of Ian when it comes to MQTT, as listed in the
nomination in a transparent manner.
However, these are not contributions to the
Sparkplug project. As far as I understood the
nomination, you expect Ian to contribute to
Sparkplug "in the future".
As "future" contributions don't count, for me
that would be a reason to reject the request for a
normal Eclipse project. However, to my
understanding, Sparkplug is more a specification
project. So let's discuss if that should be
treated differently.
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/
Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial
register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB
153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera,
Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill