MicroProfile Steering Committee Meeting - April 27th, 2021

["kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx" <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 (Fujitsu)

 

-Kenji Kazumura

 

 

From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John Clingan
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 4:12 AM
To: Microprofile WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [microprofile-wg] MPWG_SCR Final update. Approval of April 27th Steering Committee Meeting Minutes. Request vote by May 17th

 

 

OK, hoping this is the final revision for ballot. Please vote by May 17th

 

MicroProfile Steering Committee Meeting - April 27th, 2021

 

Rules

1.  

2. DO NOT EDIT AGENDA. This is the responsibility
3. 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.

4.  
5.  

6. Prefer comments occur in mailing lists/forums.

7.  
8.  

9. Document editing is enabled for community
10. to add themselves to list of community contributors during call

11.  

 

Tweeted pic here, recording here, 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 Meeting consumed all 60 minutes of Live Hangout time slot.   Presentation. EMO presented on Patent Policy options since the MicroProfile Working Group needs to select an option.The two options are “Implementation Patent” or “Compatible Implementation Patent”.     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 on the two patent options. 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.     The first 15 minutes discussed whether or not the meeting should be recorded based on an objection. It was pointed out that any member of the Steering Committee can request that a meeting not be recorded. The meeting was not recorded       The EMO presenters did not consent to recording the agenda topic. This was communicated to the chair as the call was getting underway.     We agreed that Steering Committee members must be notified of non-recorded meetings ahead of time.       For reference, the Eclipse Foundation Intellectual Property Policy.
Next Steering Committee call	See MicroProfile Calendar
Parking Lot	Compatibility Certification Request Format