Can we finalize the MPWG Charter Draft by tomorrow, Friday Aug 27th?

44 views
Skip to first unread message

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 8:01:17 PM8/27/20
to MicroProfile
My comment is hidden near the bottom of this thread, so I thought that I would create a new top-level comment posing the question.

In short. We had two outstanding items at the start of the week, and here is an updated status:
  1. Pro-rating. Prorate the remainder of this year's MPWG funding and begin a new year Jan 1st.
    Status: We can pro-rate funds. 

  2. Proxy voting. Our plan was to proxy vote, but given Paul White's comment, that's a no-go.
    Status: We cannot proxy vote.
My recommendation for #2 is for MP committers to vote before a committer rep votes as a means for providing guidance. We can decide how and when we want this to be done as part of MP processes.  It's a balance between committer reps and proxy voting.  This would also provide a "paper trail" for how the MP committers vote relative to how the committer rep votes.

Does this sound acceptable?

Can we finalize the charter draft by tomorrow, Friday Aug 27th?

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 27, 2020, 8:17:34 PM8/27/20
to MicroProfile
FYI, I sent this to Red Hat MicroProfile committers within Red Hat hoping to move this along quickly. Feel free to re-use if you belong to an organization with multiple committers:

"We got the OK to pro-rate funds, but proxy-voting 'is inconsistent with Delaware/Belgian law' (per the link in the post). Please comment on the thread.

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/microprofile/c/4ViB9mLIf04"

Kevin Sutter

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 8:44:55 AM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
John,
I just pinned this topic to make it more visible and easier to find. 

I think the Charter needs to resolve those final comments before we could say it's final...  Do you plan to do that?  I can do it, if you don't have the time.  But, I think we need a "final" version of the proposed charter before anybody could say it was ready.

-- Kevin

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 9:38:21 AM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
I can do that, but if I resolve the proxy comment then Paul's explanation will be hidden. I can resolve the remainder.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 1:37:31 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile Community
image.png

Hola MicroProfilers, 

I have reviewed the comments and for the most part I agree that the MP community can set up a wiki to establish the social-contract  when someone volunteers to be responsible for the MP Committer vote under the MPWG.

My follow up to Paul W. comments above ask him directly how can a WG lose control of the composition of its member while jumping into the WG waters?

To me, that write-up makes no sense, especially after completing 8 grueling months getting to version 0.8 of the charter for the MP working on the WG. 

I have also re-added the votes expected to be owned by the Steering Committee. That part we worked hard on & losing will be a setback on protecting the last 4yrs of how successfully MP has been to not only protect but also welcome committers & contributors alike to voice their much earned opinions. 

Amelia Eiras 


--
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/ec2eaac9-ebec-46ca-bef9-a7a11b5a7fb3o%40googlegroups.com.

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 2:24:33 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
Amelia, in the charter you +1'd to move the voting verbiage out of the charter and into the wiki. Are you still OK with that? If so,  I'll close the issue and we can submit the charter to the EF.

Thanks.

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 2:42:17 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
Whups, I just realized you made some additional comments. I replied on the charter comments. Sorry about that.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 3:31:43 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile Community
rushing here however, I was deeply thankful to you John and Kevin for sending to the forum promptly the follow up from this week's MPWG call and feedback arriving yesterday. 

Given that a regular normal vote takes up to ~ 72hrs (not including the wknd) to be considered valid for enough healthy feedback, I ask that we TOO do the same for this final -- issue. That puts the MP community into closing August & +8 months of hard work with version 0.8 after the MP Community hangout next Tuesday, Sept 1st. 

With the prorated budget allowing wonderful partners like IBM & Red Hat to cover 2020 fees ASAP, and that MP has already secured the minimum 5 Members with Jelastic, Atlanta JUG & Tomitribe, the MP project can now leave the 2nd WG phase: Proposal under the EF WG LifeCycle Phase.  
THAT means that as soon as the MPWG submits v.08 charter next week, it moves to Phase 3 Incubation phase to finalize the other documents, yeayy!  
 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/cd420027-7ff6-4f58-ad57-5e42ea228893n%40googlegroups.com.

Amelia Eiras

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 3:33:50 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile Community
Oh, and this doesn't include the other Members who are actively doing the best to join the launch of the MP working group as well. 

I just refer to the bare minimum who doesn't include each one of you who have been formidable at joining the effort. :) 

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 4:36:21 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
+1 to the overall community involvement!

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 4:40:50 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
As a  note, I am going to resolve all comments in the doc so we can submit. Also, I'm going to switch this to version 1.0 to signal to the EF that the draft is done. This is version 1.0 of the draft document that is being submitted. There will also be a separate edit (if needed) and a vote from WG members on the "final" charter. Hopefully, this approach is OK.

David Blevins

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 6:26:36 PM8/28/20
to Micro Profile
On Aug 27, 2020, at 5:17 PM, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

"We got the OK to pro-rate funds, but proxy-voting 'is inconsistent with Delaware/Belgian law' (per the link in the post). Please comment on the thread.

I don't actually agree with the statement that the state of Delaware does not allow proxy-voting.  Over 50% of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware including Apple, Google, Apache Software Foundation, Tomitribe and more and proxy-voting is very legal and used.  We have also sent proxies to Eclipse Foundation Board meetings who did vote on Tomitribe's behalf.

I also have previously understood votes in the Specification Process by their designated Representative did represent agreement by the Member organization.   Further, it's been my understanding that having a clear representative with ability to vote on behalf of a Member organization is a key element that improves our patent protection in a way that a simple community vote under the Eclipse Development Process does not cover.

If it is not the case that when say Kevin votes he votes on behalf of IBM's as their representative and he is actually voting as an individual, then I do not understand why we limit votes by org to 1.  If people are representing themselves and not their org, why can't everyone from IBM vote, why can't everyone from the community vote?

All that said, I'd prefer to just move forward.  I've grabbed the exact working from the Jakarta EE charter on how representatives are chosen, which is this:


I've put this into the MicroProfile Charter deleting the sentence that implies the Steering Committee has no influence over elections procedures.

If this is accepted the charter has my support to move forward.


-David


On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 5:01:17 PM UTC-7 John Clingan wrote:
My comment is hidden near the bottom of this thread, so I thought that I would create a new top-level comment posing the question.

In short. We had two outstanding items at the start of the week, and here is an updated status:
  1. Pro-rating. Prorate the remainder of this year's MPWG funding and begin a new year Jan 1st.
    Status: We can pro-rate funds. 

  2. Proxy voting. Our plan was to proxy vote, but given Paul White's comment, that's a no-go.
    Status: We cannot proxy vote.
My recommendation for #2 is for MP committers to vote before a committer rep votes as a means for providing guidance. We can decide how and when we want this to be done as part of MP processes.  It's a balance between committer reps and proxy voting.  This would also provide a "paper trail" for how the MP committers vote relative to how the committer rep votes.

Does this sound acceptable?

Can we finalize the charter draft by tomorrow, Friday Aug 27th?


--
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.

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 6:35:18 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
Kevin and I google-doc-approved the edit, especially given verbiage comes out of the Jakarta charter. I have also resolved all comments and promoted to version 1.0. Let's not make any edits directly in the doc and work any issues on this thread.

John Clingan

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 6:35:41 PM8/28/20
to MicroProfile
Oh, thanks for reviewing and the edit, David :-)

David Blevins

unread,
Aug 28, 2020, 6:48:37 PM8/28/20
to Micro Profile
Here are a few snippets from the Eclipse Foundation Bylaws on the concept of proxy voting and representation:

    Committer Members. Committer Members (as defined in Section 6.2(e)
    below), as a class, shall be entitled to at least one (1) seat on the Board (and such representative
    or representatives shall represent the entire class).

And later

    In the event a Board member is unavailable to attend or participate in a
    meeting of the Board, he or she may send a representative and may vote by proxy, which shall
    be included in determining whether the director is in Good Standing.

    Any Membership At-Large meeting, annual or
    special, whether or not a quorum is present, may be adjourned by the vote of a majority of the
    Membership At-Large either present in person or represented by proxy.

    Quorum. Unless otherwise provided herein, the presence in person or by
    proxy of at least a simple majority of the Membership At-Large shall constitute a quorum for the
    transaction of business. 



On Aug 28, 2020, at 3:26 PM, David Blevins <dble...@tomitribe.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2020, at 5:17 PM, John Clingan <jcli...@redhat.com> wrote:

"We got the OK to pro-rate funds, but proxy-voting 'is inconsistent with Delaware/Belgian law' (per the link in the post). Please comment on the thread.

I don't actually agree with the statement that the state of Delaware does not allow proxy-voting.  Over 50% of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware including Apple, Google, Apache Software Foundation, Tomitribe and more and proxy-voting is very legal and used.  We have also sent proxies to Eclipse Foundation Board meetings who did vote on Tomitribe's behalf.

I also have previously understood votes in the Specification Process by their designated Representative did represent agreement by the Member organization.   Further, it's been my understanding that having a clear representative with ability to vote on behalf of a Member organization is a key element that improves our patent protection in a way that a simple community vote under the Eclipse Development Process does not cover.

If it is not the case that when say Kevin votes he votes on behalf of IBM's as their representative and he is actually voting as an individual, then I do not understand why we limit votes by org to 1.  If people are representing themselves and not their org, why can't everyone from IBM vote, why can't everyone from the community vote?

All that said, I'd prefer to just move forward.  I've grabbed the exact working from the Jakarta EE charter on how representatives are chosen, which is this:

<PastedGraphic-6.png>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages