I like your follow up Kevin. Thanks for taking on each item. :)
You are correct about the 2 weeks, I added the 2 weeks' notice for all Steering committee meetings b/c that is what we agreed for such a notices on the group. If it doesn't apply for notifications coming from the EMO, lets discuss why not. I am -1 on that. 1 week notice, given vacations, deadlines, etc, is not sufficient time, IMO.
Now, we ought to be careful when we say that the MPWG is negligent onit s patent license. That is not correct.
The Jakarta EE WG has been under the EF since Q1 2018 and still today it has not defined its Patent status. The soft Compatible Patent you mentioned is there and I don't even know how it got there. If you do, please show me the minutes. I worked closely in the Jakarta Trademarks and I don't have it anywhere.
With this follow up, I wonder how comfortable are others to even request a "soft-vote" for themselves and others on either of the current choices? There is no supporting information about either option.
In 2 weeks, we ought to discuss this topic btw ourselves and then, only then, see if that soft-vote is welcomed. Ignorance and not choosing to buy ourselves time to educate ourselves is not ideal. We - those of us who can, should start documenting the pros and cons on each option. Already a document exists in the community drive yet no banwith to tackle it yet.
Thank you, John for helping us update the minutes before there are any votes. Maybe we drop the current request for a vote and submit a new vote with updated minutes. ?
John,
Overall, I think
your minutes were pretty accurate. Thanks for doing this!
- I agree with Amelia
that we should probably identify that the first 15 min was used to discuss
the recording vs non-recording of meetings.
- I do not agree
that we need a two week notice for non-recording of meetings. I think
one week is plenty sufficient. But, we didn't agree on a length of
time. We just indicated that some notice is required (as John documented).
- BTW, Scott pointed
out that any member of the steering committee can request the non-recording
of a meeting (or a portion thereof) without any notice.
- I like the specification
of the Goal of the presentation. We as a working group need to decide
on one of two patent licenses -- Implementation Patent or Compatible Patent.
- Jakarta EE currently
does operate under the Compatible Patent license. The Jakarta EE
WG is currently discussing these options and how they might apply to the
various Jakarta EE projects, but Jakarta EE currently operates with the
Compatible Patent license. (Since this was discussed during the meeting,
I see no problem with leaving this in the minutes.)
- Paul asked for
a straw poll just to get a reading on the MP working group. If the
straw poll shows a definite favorite, then maybe the formal vote will be
easier. If we're split on the straw poll, then more investigation
and discussion will be required before the formal vote. That's how
I read the request for a straw poll.
- Since we (MPWG)
are negligent on selecting this patent license, I'm sure that EF does not
want this to be dragged out. We should start with this straw poll
idea and then decide on our plan of attack at our next meeting in two weeks.
---------------------------------------------------
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:
Amelia
Eiras <aeiras@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Microprofile
WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
04/29/2021
16:32
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [microprofile-wg] MPWG_SCR Approval of April 27th Steering Committee
Meeting Minutes. Request vote by May 6th
Sent
by: "microprofile-wg"
<microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you, John for
sending the draft minutes for review & follow up.
Recommended the follow
adjustements to the minutes:- time: Presentation
and soft Q&A took the 1hr, not 30mins
- Recording issue:
The EMO would have no presented the topic if call was recorded. for
15 minute the members discussed issues with lack of recordings and concern
about the lack of it. It was agreed that if any EMO presentation cannot
be recorded, the MPWG must be made aware 2 weeks before the call.
- Topic: the
EMO Presented to the MPWG a 20 pg Patent Licences in the Context of
the EFSP.
- Goal: to enable
the MPWG to choose 1 of the currently 2 patent choices under the EF:
Implementation or Compatible Patent
- Additional linkunder minutes resources: EF
Intelectual Property Policy needs
to be included.
About
the 2 patent options:
An efficient analysis
of Implementation Patent with its Pros & Cons is necessary and was
recommended in the call.
An efficient analysis
of Compatible Patent with its Pros & Cons is necessary and was
recommended in the call.
Been years, yet I
don't believe the Jakarta WG voted nor chose its patent.
I recommend the completely
removal of the Jakarta EE patent mention from this minutes. It is
not an actual example of past work on EF Patent selection.
Straw poll request:
We actually didn't agree to vote on it in 2 weeks. At least not without
discussion (analysis) first.
When providing examples
of other Communities and their current work on Patents, can we please
use the actual links or videos that shows those communities conversations.
Hearsay ought to be avoided in all topics, specially legal.
-- Thanks,
Amelia
Eiras
twitter.com/ameliaeiras
Tribe: http://tomitribe.com
https://tribestream.io
OSS: http://microprofile.io
https://jakarta.ee
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:24 PM John
Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Meeting Minutes link,
contents pasted below, and pdf copy attached.
Meeting Minute Updates- Link to twitter picture added.
- Link to presentation added.
- I added bulleted discussion points. I
did the best I could with what I recalled since we were petty busy discussing
and not taking live notes.
DO NOT EDIT OR COMMENT ON THE ORIGINAL
MEETING MINUTES.
Thanks.
MicroProfile Steering
Committee Meeting - April 27th, 2021
Rules- DO
NOT EDIT AGENDA. This is the responsibility of the meeting moderator with
input from the steering committee and community. Agenda items should be
discussed in the mailing list/forum or in prior Steering Committee meetings
first.
- Prefer
comments occur in mailing lists/forums.
- Document
editing is enabled for community to add themselves to list of community
contributors during call
Tweeted pic here,
recordinghere, meeting minutes folder here
Meeting
Attendees |
Steering
Committee
(Quorum = 6) | Community
(Name, organization) |
Atlanta
JUG - Summers Pittman, Vincent Mayers
Fujitsu - Kenji Kazamura
IBM - Kevin Sutter,
Emily Jiang
iJUG -
Jelastic - Ruslan Synytsky,
Tetiana Fydorenchyk
Garden State JUG -
Chandra Guntur, Michael Redlich
Oracle - Ed Bratt,
Dmitry Kornilov
Payara - Rudy De
Busscher
Red Hat - John Clingan,
Roberto Cortez
Tomitribe - David Blevins,
Amelia Eiras
Committer Member: Edwin
Derks
Eclipse Foundation
Paul Buck
Sharon Corbett
Ivar Grimstad
Tanja Obradovic
| |
Agenda
Item | Minutes |
| Past
meeting minutes approval | Approved
via microprofile-wg
email thread. |
| Business
since last Steering Committee Meeting | |
| Current
Items | MicroProfile
Patent Options Discussion
Limited to 30 minutes
since sharing time on the Live Hangout- Presentation
- Discussion
- Compatible Implementation
Policy - protects against fragmentation and patents become a legal enforcement
approach to compatibility. The Spark Plug community discussed this being
a barrier to adoption.
- Patent license - implementations
that do not have to 100% pass the TCK. This approach favors adoption over
compliance. Whether or not an implementation is compatible becomes a legal
question.
- Only one patent license
policy applies per spec project. MicroProfile specifications are managed
under a single project. Theoretically, if MicroProfile split specs into
separate projects, each project could choose its patent policy with approval
by the Steering Committee.
- Is there a 3rd option
- Collective Defense? Currently not an option.
- Paul noted that Jakarta
EE working group chose the compatible implementation license and that the
Spark Plug working group is in discussion on IP patent policy.
- Paul recommended a
straw poll vote to understand where we stand as a working group. We agreed
to give it two weeks. This would be followed up by a formal vote on one
of the two (draft) resolutions outlined in the presentation.
- We agreed that Steering
Committee members must be notified of non-recorded meetings ahead of time.
|
| Next
Steering Committee call | See
MicroProfile
Calendar |
Parking
Lot
|
Compatibility Certification
Request Format
|
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg
