I feel that I’ve sufficiently covered this in the existing meeting minutes. Can we please get votes on this? I will start a new thread with a new due date.
It will be helpful to understand the reason. Even if some members do not like it, a non-recording request can be absolutely legitimate. I personally would like to understand the full picture before making any conclusion. Regards
The presenters were discussing the differences between two types of patent licenses and didn't want to be cited as a legal resource and were afraid that if the meeting were recorded their presentation may be treated as such. In general, people have the option to ask not to be recorded. In this case we were not aware of this desire until the meeting had started which caused a bit of a sidetracking of the meeting. In the future we should ask presenters before the meeting to agree to be recorded. No trade secrets or similar. The presenters wouldn’t share or speak about patents if the call was recorded. We discussed for the first +15 minutes trying to find ways for the call to be recorded. I personally felt strongly about the need to record but the answer was no recording due to patent topic, a new topic for the WG. That’s why when I see in the minutes that we are “late” on choosing a patent I am - 1 on such a statement.
3 of us in the call, AJUG, GSJUG & TT were not ok with no recording.
Thanks for the follow up, Ruslan.
The reason must be documented in the minutes. It is not, that must be fixed.
Reason- The EF-EMO in attendance , let’s list the presenters, wouldn’t present nor discuss the patents if call the call was recorded.
Why? It still does not clarify the reason. Have you discussed any trade or corporate secrets? Regards Hi, I was not able to attend the meeting. What was the reason for non-recording? I can’t find the exact clarification in the minutes. Should the reason be always specified or it’s enough just to make a request w/o a clarification of the concerns? Thanks I’ve updated the minutes. I understand that there are some additional thoughts included, but I only added the content discussed in the meeting. Please vote (assuming there are not additional comments)
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, 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 | | 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 is overdue in choosing 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 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 | | Parking Lot
|
Compatibility Certification Request Format
|
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 16:32Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [microprofile-wg] MPWG_SCR Approval of April 27th Steering Committee Meeting Minutes. Request vote by May 6thSent 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/ameliaeirasTribe: http://tomitribe.com https://tribestream.io OSS: http://microprofile.io https://jakarta.eeOn 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@xxxxxxxxxxxTo 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 listmicroprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://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
|
