| Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection |
Werner
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection (Markus KARG)
2. Re: Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection (Markus KARG)
3. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Werner Keil)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:48:13 +0200
From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo
selection
Message-ID: <00dc01d3c6b4$93367930$b9a36b90$@eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I don't doubt that for the Oracle-controlled past, but let's see how numbers
look like after EE4J is completely migrated to the EF.
-Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. M?rz 2018 01:07
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo
selection
On 2018-03-27 2:36 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> Although Markus may sometimes express his point a little more
> drastically, he does have a point on this.
>
> He did not ask about general Eclipse committer membership which is
> free. Out of the thousand or more committer members only one may be
> elected into some or all of the Jakarta EE WG committees, that seems
> given right now, unless the number changes slightly, but 1, 2 or 3 I
> am sure there won't be more representatives of "the community" if you
> include the odd JUG that can afford the 5k$ annual fee.
Your reference to "...the thousand or more committer members..." is bogus.
That number is (I assume) a reference to the total of ~1500 current
committers across all Eclipse projects. So far there are 103 EE4J
committers, of which most work for member companies Oracle, IBM, Red Hat,
Payara, Tomitribe, etc. There is somewhere around 10-ish individual
committers in EE4J that will be represented by one seat on the spec and
steering committees. Even if those numbers go up by 2 or 3 times as the rest
of the projects roll in, the population to representation ratio is closer to
10:1 than 1000:1 on an order of magnitude basis.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
(m) +1.613.220.3223
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:51:36 +0200
From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo
selection
Message-ID: <00ee01d3c6b5$0bbc0cd0$23342670$@eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
With this "impact" justification you could also say that Amazon, Google, Oracle and Microsoft should elect the next president of the USA, but not the average citizen anymore, as they pay way more taxes each, so any tax act would impact them much more than the average citizen.
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of James Roper
Sent: Mittwoch, 28. M?rz 2018 05:52
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
As I understand it, the decisions that are being made by these committees are the ones that most impact on the big vendors.
For example, one of the big responsibilities of these committees is to decide which projects become part of Jakarta EE. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the vendors who are then required to include an implementation of that spec in their platform. They need to not only add it (which may include implementing from scratch), they also need to document it for their platform, and then support it. In some cases we're talking about millions of dollars per spec that's added per vendor, maybe more.
What individual committer here releases and supports an entire Jakarta EE distribution? None. How much does a projects inclusion in Jakarta EE impact an individual committer? I don't think it really impacts them at all, except perhaps if they are involved in that project, it may give them a certain level of kudos. So, why should such an individual get a large say over what the vendors have to include on their platform when it has very little impact on them?
Even the logo affects the big vendors more, the primary purpose of the logo is to be a trademark that vendors can use to say that they are compliant with the spec - they will be putting this logo on their website, in their marketing materials, etc. For individuals committers, the logo serves comparatively little purpose.
So I think it makes perfect sense that the vendors have much more control over these committees than individual contributors, they are the ones who are most impacted by the decisions made by these committees, and also they have the most investment in Jakarta EE itself - being a strategic member for example requires having at least 4 people working full time on Jakarta EE.
Open Source isn't just about individuals working together, in fact it's rarely about just individuals working together. It's about all sorts of parties, including companies and individuals, working together. Very many open source projects are maintained and controlled primarily by one, or sometimes a few big companies. It's a model that works well. The nice thing about EE4J is that it is fundamentally a place where big vendors of platforms come together to collaborate, but in contrast to the JCP, the process is completely open, and at the project level, control has been turned into a regular open source model, where any individual can get involved and have a major influence. At the high level, it's primarily big companies that have the control, but that's not a bad thing. If they make bad decisions, it's going result in the committers at the project level ignoring them and not producing specs that they can include in their platforms, which is bad for them. Conversely, if at the proje
ct level, individual committers make bad decisions and are not producing specs that the vendors can include in their platforms, then the projects aren't going to be included in Jakarta EE and will consequently suffer in their uptake, which the committers generally don't work. The nice thing is that this relationship is formally acknowledged by who has control where in the EF, if we changed it so that the high level committees were primarily controlled by individual contributors, then if the individual contributors started making bad decisions on those committees, the vendors would just stop producing Jakarta EE implementations, with no formal process for managing and communicating that tension. Jakarta EE would then cease to have any meaning.
On 28 March 2018 at 10:06, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org > wrote:
On 2018-03-27 2:36 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
Although Markus may sometimes express his point a little more drastically, he does have a point on this.
He did not ask about general Eclipse committer membership which is free. Out of the thousand or more committer members only one may be elected into some or all of the Jakarta EE WG committees, that seems given right now, unless the number changes slightly, but 1, 2 or 3 I am sure there won't be more representatives of "the community" if you include the odd JUG that can afford the 5k$ annual fee.
Your reference to "...the thousand or more committer members..." is bogus. That number is (I assume) a reference to the total of ~1500 current committers across all Eclipse projects. So far there are 103 EE4J committers, of which most work for member companies Oracle, IBM, Red Hat, Payara, Tomitribe, etc. There is somewhere around 10-ish individual committers in EE4J that will be represented by one seat on the spec and steering committees. Even if those numbers go up by 2 or 3 times as the rest of the projects roll in, the population to representation ratio is closer to 10:1 than 1000:1 on an order of magnitude basis.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
(m) +1.613.220.3223 <tel:%2B1.613.220.3223>
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
--
James Roper
Senior Octonaut
Lightbend <https://www.lightbend.com/> ? Build reactive apps!
Twitter: @jroper <https://twitter.com/jroper>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20180328/51c4ef27/attachment. html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:52:27 +0200
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
Message-ID:
<CAAGawe2W2bGCASUuDMByh4-2FQLg1V_2=8iTUPhqaicoO7=s5w@ mail.gmail.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mike/Wayne,
Thanks for jointly answering that.
Not sure, if a JUG with official members who are registered with that
entity and show up regularly would count? Otherwise it is probably just
employees like both of you are at Eclipse Foundation.
The funny thing is, that while some projects are still at the JCP, this
seems perfectly fine there:
https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=382
To my knowledge neither Mark nor Emily are permanent employees of Eclipse
Foundation Inc, yet they both represent it as Spec Lead Organization being
committer members only.
Werner
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:44 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org > wrote:
> Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Werner Keil)
> 2. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Mike Milinkovich)
> 3. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Wayne Beaton)
> 4. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Markus KARG)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:11:20 +0200
> From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
> Message-ID:
> <CAAGawe0cHoSdwOhweQ6JRF1d6Hat6 iNmA+tUOPz7Afei8ReHAQ@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> So short answer, a JUG like LJC is not a legal entity, therefore cannot
> have committers or show up in the mentioned stats?
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:00 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org >
> wrote:
>
> > Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Committers don't have to contribute code (Wayne Beaton)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:20:46 -0400
> > From: Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@eclipse-foundation.org >
> > To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
> > Message-ID:
> > <CALXWXwespttQMqpMtpxYUq7ETjUSY g99iMiyR=DaEKRujLTQog@mail.
> > gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > You need to be a legal entity to be a member of the Eclipse Foundation.
> >
> > A company is a legal entity. There are several membership levels for
> > companies, I recommend that you use the contact information on the page
> > that you referenced if you have further questions.
> >
> > A committer, being a person, is also a legal entity and can join as a
> > committer member.
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > P.S. I believe the accepted protocol when responding to a list digest is
> to
> > trim away the content that is not relevant to the thread you're
> responding
> > to.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wayne,
> > >
> > > The most important question is, whether "company" can only be corporate
> > > entities like Ltd., PLC, etc. or the non-for-profit organizations,
> > > standards bodies, universities, research institutes, media and
> > publishing,
> > > government and other organization types as defined by the Eclipse
> > > Foundation board of directors (https://www.eclipse.org/
> > > membership/become_a_member/membershipTypes.php) also qualify if they
> > join
> > > as Solutions Members for 5000$ per year?
> > >
> > > I understand, a JUG that has no formal incorporation and membership
> > > registry could have a hard time regarding IP, but those that are
> > registered
> > > non-for-profit organizations, could they show up there, too if their
> > > members commit code?
> > >
> > > Werner
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Wayne Beaton
> > Director of Open Source Projects
> > The Eclipse Foundation
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-
> community/attachments/
> > 20180328/c59b99b0/attachment.html>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ee4j-community mailing list
> > ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> > from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
> >
> >
> > End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 7, Issue 134
> > **********************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- community/attachments/
> 20180328/15266b4f/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:19:44 -0400
> From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org >
> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
> Message-ID:
> <25ad965c-a697-8ca2-585a-8dacf220c5b0@eclipse- >foundation.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 2018-03-28 12:11 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> > So short answer, a JUG like LJC is not a legal entity, therefore
> > cannot have committers or show up in the mentioned stats?
>
> Incorrect.
>
> The LJC is a legal entity, and is already a member of the Eclipse
> Foundation. As is SouJava. Some JUGs are legal entities, some are not.
>
> Now whether it would make sense for committers to claim that they work
> for the LJC is a different story. Someone like Martijn Verburg is an
> officer of LJC, so that would be fine. Some person who shows up a LJC
> meetups but has no formal affiliation with the LJC legal entity would
> almost certainly not be able to claim that their contributions were
> coming from the LJC.
>
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:24:03 -0400
> From: Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@eclipse-foundation.org >
> To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
> Message-ID:
> <CALXWXwegkMDod2eRF4+P+rtm=+kLkYubN_0fAEWM=VzkGgAVgw@mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I am unaware of the legal status of LJC.
>
> Members of the LJC can be committers if they are elected into the position
> like anybody else. Any commit activity from those committers will be
> attributed to the member company with which they are affiliated, if any. We
> have no mechanism for specifying other affiliations.
>
> HTH,
>
> Wayne
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > So short answer, a JUG like LJC is not a legal entity, therefore cannot
> > have committers or show up in the mentioned stats?
> >
> > Werner
> >
>
> --
> Wayne Beaton
> Director of Open Source Projects
> The Eclipse Foundation
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- community/attachments/
> 20180328/bbdc6e23/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:43:57 +0200
> From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
> Message-ID: <00ce01d3c6b3$fb1465e0$f13d31a0$@eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Wayne,
>
>
>
> thanks a lot for this explanation.
>
>
>
> You might want to filter out the "glassfishbot".
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Markus
>
>
>
> From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
> Sent: Dienstag, 27. M?rz 2018 20:13
> To: EE4J community discussions
> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Committers don't have to contribute code
>
>
>
> Company logos show up on project pages when:
>
> * The company is a member of the Eclipse Foundation;
> * The company has provided their logo to the Eclipse Foundation; and
> * At least one employee of the company is a committer on the project
> and has pushed at least one commit into any branch of any project
> repository in the last three months.
>
> So yes. If you want your company logo to appear on a project page, you
> need to have a committer that actually pushes commits. Note listing a
> committer as an "Also-by" entry in a Git Commit <https://www.eclipse.org/
> projects/handbook/#resources-commit> counts (make sure that you get the
> email address right). So a committer can give credit to a collaborator when
> pushing a commit.
>
>
>
> The process that builds the chart data only knows what it finds in the Git
> repository, so some "bot" users will appear. I can filter them out if I
> know about them. I'll see what I can do about the "genie" users. Similar to
> logos, only member companies show up in the charts. "Contributor" groups
> non-committer contributors together; "Unaffiliated" groups together those
> committers who do not work for a member company.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking with your last statement. The charts and
> the list of companies is generated exclusively by the criteria that I've
> set above. Having your company logo/name appear on a project page is a
> benefit of membership with the Eclipse Foundation (independent of any
> working group affiliation).
>
>
>
> FWIW, developers need to earn their way to committer status on a project
> by demonstrating merit <https://www.eclipse.org/
> projects/handbook/#elections-committer> . Employment status or employer
> affilication is not an accepted criterion for becoming a committer (nor is
> a change in affiliation a reason to retire a committer).
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Wayne,
>
>
>
> They don't, but if an organization wants to show up under
> https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j
>
> next to Oracle, Red Hat or IBM, they probably might like to ;-)
>
>
>
> Similar stats for MicroProfile: https://projects.eclipse.org/
> projects/technology.microprofile/who show, that between 25 and 40% (not
> sure, if the "microprofile-genie" bot is included in the 40.5%
> "Contributor" or 5% "Unaffiliated") are committers and contributors who
> don't work for a big company.
>
>
>
> Would it be possible to filter those bots out also from the individual
> diagram?
>
>
>
> Those of us with long JCP background know, JUGs were not allowed to
> contribute directly to a JSR while it could join the EC. Is that similar
> here, meaning, all bigger JUGs like SouJava or LJC could buy with a
> Strategic Membership is a few extra seats in various working groups and
> boards or similar bodies, or could such a Strategic Member also have
> committers on their behalf and would therefore show up under "Active Member
> Companies" assuming their members are active of course?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Wayne Beaton
>
> Director of Open Source Projects
>
> The Eclipse Foundation
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- community/attachments/
> 20180328/4701dd5c/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
>
>
> End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 7, Issue 135
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20180328/dac35091/attachment. html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 7, Issue 136
**********************************************