[MPWG Questions] 1st year fee of the MPWG as an exception

116 views
Skip to first unread message

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Jul 21, 2020, 4:43:32 PM7/21/20
to MicroProfile Community
Paul Buck, 

I ask you via this public forum 3 questions:  

  1. Can you approve the 1st year fee of the MPWG as an exception?
  2. Why is it that a few EF Working Groups projects (pushing IP, just like MP) have been granted the 1st year exception, YET MP is being held on a different standard?
  3.  Isn't the job of the Eclipse Foundation to have processes that are iterated across its ecosystem?
Thank you in advance for sending your reply to this forum and thread.

Bcc'd Paul Buck

----

Background 

During the MP community call today, July 21st agenda, a few of us asked repeated questions that have gotten no answers or partial answers via the Community or Working Groups recorded calls.

Since we started the discussions & the write-up for the Standalone Working Charter in April, we have asked several times via private mediums, to the Eclipse Foundation to allow us to skip the 1st year of the MPWG (which includes the EF Maintenance fee- likely impacting the EF yearly WG budget projections). Thus far the answer by the EF management has been NO without further explanation.

Why have we asked and continue to ask for this exception for a year without fees?
  • A few Members' budgets are frozen (without flexibility) due to the Covid-19 pandemic and no budget can be allocated to new projects or activities. 
  • We know that other EF WG projects, such as the Jakarta EE Project & others, were already given that exception in their 1st year fees. 

This Community has already secured the +5 Members that are the minimum requirement to take-out incubation MicroProfile as a StandAlone Working Group Project .  Our focus and goal is to release MP 4.0. this year, this quarter. 

If you answer with a YES and you approve the MP Charter as it is,  MP will have finally completed 7-gruelling-full months dedicated to the creation of its Working Group and will now move to what it cares most about, MP on-time Releases. 



Paul Buck

unread,
Jul 23, 2020, 1:58:25 PM7/23/20
to Amelia Eiras, MicroProfile Community

Hi,

Fees are required for the MicroProfile working group because it is atypical.  When most other working groups are formed and working on their budget and fees, they are incubating and it is early days. Projects are being envisioned and set up and are a long way from doing releases. MicroProfile is up and running, there is real work to be done to shift the project into the working group governance in support of the specification project and plans to ship a release out of the new working group in the fall.

Other specification based working groups are using the trademark guidelines and agreement as is, no customization. MicroProfile requires a non-standard approach which requires legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done.

Specification-based working groups do require more work to support because of the specification process, managing agreements and trademark & branding. Both Jakarta EE and Sparkplug have fees. The other specification-based working group is AsciiDoc. That working group  just got underway and  falls into the getting started category. The AsciiDoc  steering committee is committed to having a budget and fee schedule by the end of October with fees effective January, 2021. They have no plans to do a release until well into 2021.

The MicroProfile working group will hit the ground running so having it fee based from the get go is required.

The Eclipse Foundation does indeed have processes that are used uniformly across all of its projects and working groups. That is why the Foundation is so highly regarded for its community and its vendor-neutrality.

Thanks ... Paul 

David Blevins

unread,
Jul 24, 2020, 3:21:27 PM7/24/20
to Micro Profile
On Jul 23, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

MicroProfile requires a non-standard approach which requires legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done. 

It's been our intent be non-standard in these two ways:

 - not have any headcount associated with the WG budget and use of the budget for incidental costs.  Definitely legal in the first year.  Budget would be reevaluated every year based on members and needs.  Note, not every 3 years, but every year.

 - not restrict the distribution of the current MicroProfile logo.  We can create a separate logo for compatible implementations.  It's our intent to have the community create it within the guidelines; we wouldn't be looking for Eclipse to find design resources to create it, just approve it.

Does the additional cost you mention provide these freedoms?  If not, what non-standard approaches affecting costs did you have in mind?


-David


Paul Buck

unread,
Jul 26, 2020, 8:24:48 PM7/26/20
to MicroProfile Community

Hi David,

Regarding budgets and fees, MicroProfile would be different from Jakarta (which has a 3 year commitment) but not different from other working groups. What is typical is that a Steering Committee creates an annual program plan and budget with input from the Foundation. Based on the budget the fee schedule is either confirmed or adjusted for the upcoming year. The current draft of the MicroProfile working charter provides for this.

As for logo and branding MicroProfile is non-standard since for starters it intends to permit non-working group members to use the compatibility logo. The heavy lifting here is the branding and compatibility program that supports this including:
  • Trademark Guidelines 
  • Branding Usage Handbook
  • Trademark Licence Agreement 
  • Registering the logo in the required jurisdictions and protect the brand from mis-use. This is not optional. 
Once the program is established there is the ongoing implementation and administration of the non-standard compatibility program. The Foundation can also do marketing to support and promote the brand based on the working group's program plan priorities.

Thanks ... Paul


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0662187C-DAF0-43D4-BC69-2A2FBFC44D58%40tomitribe.com.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Jul 28, 2020, 12:57:41 PM7/28/20
to MicroProfile Community
Thank you Paul for helping us fill in the gaps on the budget with your replies, we appreciate it. 

See inline below comments and 4 questions. 


On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:24 PM Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

Hi David,

Regarding budgets and fees, MicroProfile would be different from Jakarta (which has a 3 year commitment) but not different from other working groups. What is typical is that a Steering Committee creates an annual program plan and budget with input from the Foundation.

  • Why would the Eclipse Foundation be required to approve the ongoing budgets of the MPWG? 
  • At the moment, we are discovering what are the "must" costs related with the EF that as a WG, we must cover.
  • Is it the job of each Eclipse WG Project- - MicroProfile-- to choose how nimble, agile & light it runs?
 
Based on the budget the fee schedule is either confirmed or adjusted for the upcoming year. The current draft of the MicroProfile working charter provides for this.

  • As stated on the Charter, MP expects to have full control to lower its fees and adjust its budget without issues. Is that an incorrect assumption?

As for logo and branding MicroProfile is non-standard since for starters it intends to permit non-working group members to use the compatibility logo. The heavy lifting here is the branding and compatibility program that supports this including:
  • Trademark Guidelines 
 We are aware of how the EF Trademark Guidelines and will follow suit. 
 
  • Branding Usage Handbook

Same response as above
  • Trademark Licence Agreement 
Same response as above
  • Registering the logo in the required jurisdictions and protect the brand from mis-use. This is not optional. 
+1 that MicroProfile needs to be trademark and that the WG will cover for that legal cost. 

 In the future should this community see (create) any other necessary trademarks , it will also use part of its budget to cover such costs. 
 
Once the program is established there is the ongoing implementation and administration of the non-standard compatibility program.

  • What is the Eclipse Foundation WG Maintenance fee for its working groups? 
 
The Foundation can also do marketing to support and promote the brand based on the working group's program plan priorities.

As stated in the Charter, and repeated across the board in all MPWG, private & public, MicroProfile won't be assigning any of its yearly budget to hire or pull the EFmarketing & brand team. 
The MicroProfile Community has for  +4yrs (3 & 1/2 as an Eclipse Project) 100% owned beautifully its branding & marketing. 
That won't change under its MPWG. Thank you for allowing me to repeat it once again under this thread Paul. 

 

Thanks ... Paul


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:21 PM David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

MicroProfile requires a non-standard approach which requires legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done. 

It's been our intent be non-standard in these two ways:

 - not have any headcount associated with the WG budget and use of the budget for incidental costs.  Definitely legal in the first year.  Budget would be reevaluated every year based on members and needs.  Note, not every 3 years, but every year.

 - not restrict the distribution of the current MicroProfile logo.  We can create a separate logo for compatible implementations.  It's our intent to have the community create it within the guidelines; we wouldn't be looking for Eclipse to find design resources to create it, just approve it.

Does the additional cost you mention provide these freedoms?  If not, what non-standard approaches affecting costs did you have in mind?


-David


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0662187C-DAF0-43D4-BC69-2A2FBFC44D58%40tomitribe.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

David Blevins

unread,
Jul 28, 2020, 4:21:47 PM7/28/20
to Micro Profile
On Jul 26, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:


Hi David,

Regarding budgets and fees, MicroProfile would be different from Jakarta (which has a 3 year commitment) but not different from other working groups. What is typical is that a Steering Committee creates an annual program plan and budget with input from the Foundation. Based on the budget the fee schedule is either confirmed or adjusted for the upcoming year. The current draft of the MicroProfile working charter provides for this.

Thanks for the clarification, especially on not needing the 3-year commitment.

As for logo and branding MicroProfile is non-standard since for starters it intends to permit non-working group members to use the compatibility logo.

I think there's some miscommunication on this note.  We do not intend to use the existing MicroProfile logo as a compatibility logo; we want there to be no new restrictions on the existing logo.  We are ok to introduce a second logo that would be used for compatibility and in that regard is not different from other working groups.  The community would design this logo.

With that in mind do you still see any non-standard approaches which require legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done? (above that of any working group)

On the compatibility logo, pretending for a moment that the WG was formed today:

 - how far does the compatibility logo need to proceed in the trademark process of before we would be able to cut our 4.0.0 final release?  (i.e. can we work on the logo in parallel to shipping 4.0)

 - If it must be in place and trademark approved before shipping anything, how long do we anticipate the trademark process taking?



-David



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:21 PM David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

MicroProfile requires a non-standard approach which requires legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done. 

It's been our intent be non-standard in these two ways:

 - not have any headcount associated with the WG budget and use of the budget for incidental costs.  Definitely legal in the first year.  Budget would be reevaluated every year based on members and needs.  Note, not every 3 years, but every year.

 - not restrict the distribution of the current MicroProfile logo.  We can create a separate logo for compatible implementations.  It's our intent to have the community create it within the guidelines; we wouldn't be looking for Eclipse to find design resources to create it, just approve it.

Does the additional cost you mention provide these freedoms?  If not, what non-standard approaches affecting costs did you have in mind?


-David



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0662187C-DAF0-43D4-BC69-2A2FBFC44D58%40tomitribe.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

Paul Buck

unread,
Jul 29, 2020, 4:42:56 PM7/29/20
to MicroProfile Community


Responses inline below ...

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:21 PM David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
On Jul 26, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:


Hi David,

Regarding budgets and fees, MicroProfile would be different from Jakarta (which has a 3 year commitment) but not different from other working groups. What is typical is that a Steering Committee creates an annual program plan and budget with input from the Foundation. Based on the budget the fee schedule is either confirmed or adjusted for the upcoming year. The current draft of the MicroProfile working charter provides for this.

Thanks for the clarification, especially on not needing the 3-year commitment.

As for logo and branding MicroProfile is non-standard since for starters it intends to permit non-working group members to use the compatibility logo.

I think there's some miscommunication on this note.  We do not intend to use the existing MicroProfile logo as a compatibility logo; we want there to be no new restrictions on the existing logo.  We are ok to introduce a second logo that would be used for compatibility and in that regard is not different from other working groups.  The community would design this logo.

With that in mind do you still see any non-standard approaches which require legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done? (above that of any working group)

Okay, thanks for the background, any use of the Eclipse MicroProfile logo must be compliant with the project guidelines established here. Once MicroProfile becomes a working group, then future usage must be compliant with the working group guidelines established in the same document. No exceptions to this policy by any EF project or working group are allowed. A policy of "no restriction" is not compatible with how the Eclipse Foundation manages its community's trademarks. That said, the Guidelines do say that each WG may, at its discretion, develop guidelines for use of the WG marks, logos and their derivatives, as applicable, by third parties, provided such guidelines are consistent with this Policy. Note that while the goal of encouraging broad adoption and use of the logo is understood, there are basic requirements in law related to protecting the value of a logo in order to retain the trademark. The Foundation’s trademark policies are based on open source best practices, largely similar to the Apache Software Foundation’s,  for the benefit of projects, members, and community. The goal of broad trademark adoption and governance need not be at odds with one another.

Having the community do the creative work on a MicroProfile  compatibility logo is fine, the Foundation will provide input for consideration. As I mentioned in my previous response, the heavy lifting is in the compatibility and branding program. And yes, there will most certainly be legal and staff time spent in support of developing these. As we understand it, the intent is that the licensing of the MP compatibility mark will not be based on membership in the MPWG. As such, the artifacts created for Jakarta EE and the other specification working groups are not suitable and will require significant modification. In addition to this, the new compatibility logo will have to be registered which requires legal work by our trademark specialist.

On the compatibility logo, pretending for a moment that the WG was formed today:

 - how far does the compatibility logo need to proceed in the trademark process of before we would be able to cut our 4.0.0 final release?  (i.e. can we work on the logo in parallel to shipping 4.0)

 - If it must be in place and trademark approved before shipping anything, how long do we anticipate the trademark process taking?

 The 4.0.0 final release via the EFSP can be delivered prior to having a compatibility logo and compatibility trademark and branding program in place. What it means is that compatible implementations are limited to say what they are permitted to declare as explained in the Eclipse Foundation TCK License (EFTL). That is basically that the product fully passes the TCK and is compatible with the MicroProfile 4.0.0 specification. Until there is a compatibility logo and a compatibility trademark and brand program defined and implemented that all that can be said regarding compatibility. I expect it would take 2 to 3 months to get this all in place once the working group is in the Incubation phase. Note that the compatibility logo does not have to be fully registered before we can implement that branding program. Once the trademark applications have been filed in various jurisdictions, we can start making progress. 
 

-David



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:21 PM David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Paul Buck <paul...@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

MicroProfile requires a non-standard approach which requires legal, program and marketing & branding work to get done. 

It's been our intent be non-standard in these two ways:

 - not have any headcount associated with the WG budget and use of the budget for incidental costs.  Definitely legal in the first year.  Budget would be reevaluated every year based on members and needs.  Note, not every 3 years, but every year.

 - not restrict the distribution of the current MicroProfile logo.  We can create a separate logo for compatible implementations.  It's our intent to have the community create it within the guidelines; we wouldn't be looking for Eclipse to find design resources to create it, just approve it.

Does the additional cost you mention provide these freedoms?  If not, what non-standard approaches affecting costs did you have in mind?


-David



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/0662187C-DAF0-43D4-BC69-2A2FBFC44D58%40tomitribe.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/CAEWo7Y7utj46P6qv2pGezCwacev7W3H2D_7sgEr8gUrVuT335Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

Paul Buck

unread,
Jul 29, 2020, 5:16:48 PM7/29/20
to MicroProfile Community

In my response below the link to Eclipse Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines was dropped, they are here.

Werner Keil

unread,
Jul 29, 2020, 8:39:19 PM7/29/20
to MicroProfile
Hopefully using that compatibility logo will also require to pass the underlying Jakarta EE TCKs completely and Not just MP TCKs, otherwise that would create a "Subprime" compatibility and vendors would still have to pay for it?;-/

Emily Jiang

unread,
Jul 30, 2020, 4:28:32 AM7/30/20
to MicroProfile
Thank you Paul for the clarification!
The 4.0.0 final release via the EFSP can be delivered prior to having a compatibility logo and compatibility trademark and branding program in place. What it means is that compatible implementations are limited to say what they are permitted to declare as explained in the Eclipse Foundation TCK License (EFTL). That is basically that the product fully passes the TCK and is compatible with the MicroProfile 4.0.0 specification. Until there is a compatibility logo and a compatibility trademark and brand program defined and implemented that all that can be said regarding compatibility. I expect it would take 2 to 3 months to get this all in place once the working group is in the Incubation phase. Note that the compatibility logo does not have to be fully registered before we can implement that branding program. Once the trademark applications have been filed in various jurisdictions, we can start making progress. 
 
Am I right to say that once the charter and the 5 voting members are finalised, MP 4.0.0 final release can be delivered? If not, what else is to be done? As you might know, we are aiming to release MP 4.0.0 this year and will need to focus on the prereqs.

Thanks
Emily


Responses inline below ...


-David



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microp...@googlegroups.com.

Paul Buck

unread,
Jul 30, 2020, 5:01:55 PM7/30/20
to MicroProfile Community

Hi Emily,

The next steps are up to John and Kevin on behalf of RedHat and IBM to propose the creation of the working group to get the working the Proposal Phase.

Thanks ... Paul


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/36c7f3ee-8632-4871-b003-12a7f6e12791o%40googlegroups.com.

Emily Jiang

unread,
Jul 30, 2020, 5:47:56 PM7/30/20
to MicroProfile
Thank you Paul for the confirmation! It seems that we are nearly there!

Thanks
Emily

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Aug 6, 2020, 7:56:57 PM8/6/20
to MicroProfile
Hola Paul, 

Can you please answer the following questions, thank YOU!
  1. Yearly EF WG-Maintenance Fee: What is the Eclipse Foundation Working Group G&A Rates percentage for MicroProfile?  
  2. MicroProfile has successfully managed its 3 times per year major Releases for almost 4 years now. It doesn't need nor wishes to pay for the Specification Process Management that other incoming new WP might need when onboarding into the EF Spec process.   Is MicroProfile allowed to skip that yearly Spec expense?


Amelia Eiras

unread,
Aug 17, 2020, 2:13:37 PM8/17/20
to Paul Buck, MicroProfile Community
Hola Paul, 

A direct forward with you in the TO of the email.
Thank you for taking the time to answer the 2 questions submitted on August 6th: 
  1. Yearly EF WG-Maintenance Fee: What is the Eclipse Foundation Working Group G&A Rates percentage for MicroProfile?  
  2. MicroProfile has successfully managed its 3 times per year major Releases for almost 4 years now. It doesn't need nor wishes to pay for the Specification Process Management that other incoming new WP might need when onboarding into the EF Spec process.   Is MicroProfile allowed to skip that yearly Spec expense?


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/93406860-872e-475e-8755-9bf90ca5ee74o%40googlegroups.com.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Sep 10, 2020, 5:55:35 PM9/10/20
to MicroProfile
This thread still needs to be displayed as open in this forum. NO Answers to the 2 questions yet. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages