|
Please do not worry about how Wayne and I get the approvals in
place for any necessary process changes. I'm confident we can make
what we agree to happen. Let's figure out what the right solution
is, and then the EMO can figure out how to implement it.
On 2018-05-24 1:36 AM, Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
I believe changes to the Eclipse Development Process require approval by the Eclipse Board, so if a rule change is necessary it would need to be proposed to the board. Whether or not an exception can be made for just the EE4J Working Group or if the change would need to apply to all Working Groups, I do not know.
If the rules germane to this issue cannot be changed, than instead of a rules change it could be considered a “courtesy” that is commonly extended to companies whose whose employee, elected as a committer, has ended their employment with that company. For example:
Project X has 10 committers with names (A, B, C ... J). Committer B worked for ACME Company when elected to a Specification Project. When Committer B is nominated they declare that although they are individual they also are an official representative of ACME Company. This proclamation is not binding in anyway, but is simply informative part of the nomination.
Committer B announces that they are leaving the ACME Company to become independent but will sign a new Committers Agreement as an Independent (or their new company will sign one) and will stay on Project X. The ACME Company makes a request that another employee, Ms. K, me nominated as a committer to Project X. The Project Lead, as a courtesy to the ACME Company, can choose to nominate Ms. K. The vote is taken according to normal Eclipse Development Handbook and Ms. K is either elected a committer or not.
That's a start, but
that makes it clear we're inventing new rules for Spec
Projects that are different than any other Eclipse
project. Is there a better way to "overlay" the Spec
Project rules on top of the existing Project rules?
Richard
Monson-Haefel wrote on 05/23/18 02:34 PM:
Good point. Here is a counter proposal:
In addition to accepting individuals to
a Specification Group, the group lead or the group can
nominate/elect (or whatever) a representative of an
organization. If the represenative leaves that
organization, the organization can nominate a
replacement represenative. The original
representative can remain on the Specification Group
as an individual or perhaps representing some other
company, but the company that originally invested in
that represenative has the right to nominate a new
represenative. The newly nominated represenative can
be subject to a vote by the group. That way the
organization that lost the represenative has the
oppourtunity to maintain its place at the table but is
not an automatic “pay to play” contributor.
I think that protects the investment
made by the organization when it has payed the
representative salary and gave that time to the
Specification Group without making it a “pay to play”
situation. So there can be individual group members
and organizational group members.
Richard
Monson-Haefel wrote on 05/23/18 07:28 AM:
Depending on the
membership level, an organization should
automatically get a seat on any
specification project they want but
should excercise self-restraint to focus
on those specifications germane to their
products. Why, for example, should a
company become a strategic member if it
cannot have a seat at the table?
So, if you
pay then you can play?
What about the people who don't pay?
At the JCP, the Spec Lead would decide whether
an expert was qualified to be on the expert
group. We ran into quite a few people who
clearly only wanted to be on an expert group so
that they could add that to their resume. We
rejected many of those people.
If "expert group members" are Committers on a
Spec Project, who qualifies the Committers?
After the Project is created, I assume it would
be the Project Lead. Before the Project is
created, is it just the person who proposes the
project? And you're suggesting that the Project
Lead would have no choice but to accept any
Committer proposed by a paying Member?
|
