Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT][COMPLETE][Release Review] MicroProfile 6.

[Alasdair Nottingham <not@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Wayne,

I've been reviewing the EFSP, MicroProfile Specification Process, the MicroProfile Charter and Eclipse Foundation Working Group Process looking for the rule that says that Primeton cannot vote in this case and I'm at a loss to find it. When you are being deliberate about interpretation of rules around eligibility to vote it is very important to outline the basis of your interpretation rather than stating the interpretation and I don't see this in your email. I do not with to imply any error on your or Eclipse Foundation's part, nor do I intend to suggest that you are operating with anything but the best intention for all concerned, but for the process of ratification of specifications to be a credible process it is vital that everyone is able to understand and interpret the rules before a ballot or it gives the appearance of being arbitrary and unfair. 

As far as I can tell the only thing the EFSP says about eligibility is that the Specification Committee members vote, it doesn't say anything about when they become eligible, I can certainly understand a desire to have a shared agreement about when someone becomes eligible, but it doesn't say that you have to be a member when a vote starts. I did look at the Working Group Process to see if it was mentioned there and I could not see it, and it points to the MicroProfile charter as the source of rules on who is on the Specification Committee. The MicroProfile Charter is also silent on this point, it does talk about the make up of the committee, but all it says is that corporate members have a chair, it doesn't state anything about having to fill that chair with a named person prior to a vote commencing. I know from past history interpreting eclipse rules that things are not always laid out in the way I would expect so I do not intend to state that this rule is not recorded, just that I cannot find it and I would like the Eclipse Foundation to clearly outline the reasons behind its view that Primeton is eligible to vote.

Steve,

The MicroProfile Specification process is silent on the matter of majority or super majority which means the EFSP requirement for a super majority holds.

Thanks

Alasdair

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 17:29, Emily Jiang via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wayne,

Where was your explanation regarding whether to count a particular vote documented? I have been searching for the voting criteria from the relevant docs but did not find anything. If it is not specified, different interpretations likely occur like this. Besides, the vote on Telemetry counted the vote from Primeton on 28th November. Why wasn't the problem spotted then? This is not consistent.

Thanks

Emily

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 9:47 PM Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am following up on Paul Buck’s note that we wanted to review the result of this ballot. 

Upon review, we deem that this ballot did not pass and thus the MicroProfile 6.0 Release Review was not passed. 

The short version is that it is because Primeton had not appointed their representative at the start of the vote.

Before elaborating, I want to inform everyone that we are being deliberate about the interpretation of the rules and the outcome as there are significant intellectual property implications that are dependent on whether the ballot has passed. Further, I'd like to acknowledge that we believe that everybody was operating in good faith and that our interpretation of the rules is in no way intended to suggest otherwise.

The determination of who is eligible to vote is determined at the onset of any vote. In this case, the vote began on November 22/2022.  At that time, Primeton had not yet appointed their representative to the Steering Committee, and as such she was not eligible to have her ballot count, either to determine quorum or the outcome of the vote. As a reminder, all members of the MicroProfile working group are eligible to appoint an individual to serve on the Steering Committee; however, there is no obligation to do so.  As a result, until such time as an individual is appointed, there is no consideration of that member’s potential representation in the computation of quorum or being eligible to vote on any matter.  

As a result, there were only nine eligible voters for this particular election. Of those nine, as shown in the results, five voted in favor, three against, and one abstained.  In accordance with our Bylaws, the abstention is not counted in either the numerator or denominator, and thus the computation is based on the five in favor of eight non-abstentions total, for a result of 62.5%.  Given this is less than the 2/3 majority required, this means the ballot did not pass. 

Note the EFSP defines a super-majority to be two-thirds of the eligible voters and that specification ballots require a super-majority to pass. Working group charters for specification based working groups including MicroProfile list the EFSP as a governing document.

Wayne

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:59 PM Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All,

We are reviewing whether this ballot should be deemed as having passed. We will provide as quickly as possible a detailed explanation of why this is the case, and to provide our determination, but nonetheless we wanted to note this on the mailing list immediately to ensure that no committers begin to take actions based on the assumption it has passed.  

As I am going on PTO on Thursday, it will be another member of the Eclipse team who will provide the further detail.

Thanks for your understanding.

... Paul

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 12:19 PM Emily Jiang via microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I declare this ballot complete and approved. The summary of the votes is below.

Representative	Representative for:	Vote
Summers Pittman, Vincent Mayers	Atlanta JUG	+1
Emily Jiang, Nathan Rauh	IBM	+1
John Clingan, Roberto Cortez	Red Hat	-1
David Blevins, Amelia Eiras	Tomitribe	-1
Chandra Guntur, Michael Redlich	Garden State Java User Group	-1
Ed Bratt, Dmitry Kornilov	Oracle	+1
Jan Westerkamp, Heiko Rupp	iJUG	+0
Kenji Kazumura, Takahiro Nagao	Fujitsu	+1
Reza Rahman, Ed Burns	Microsoft	+1
Mingyue Huang	Primeton	+1
	Total	6

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/microprofile-wg/msg01705.html

p.s. (super majority achieved. 2/3*9=6; each +0 means removing one the denominator)

Even though the ballot was concluded successfully, the raised issues will be addressed in the upcoming releases Feb/June 2023.

--

Thanks,
Emily on behalf of MicroProfile Steering Committee

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects | Eclipse Foundation

My working day may not be your working day! Please don’t feel obliged to read or reply to this e-mail outside of your normal working hours.

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg

--

Thanks
Emily

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg

--

Alasdair Nottingham
not@xxxxxxxxxx