[open-regulatory-compliance] Charter - Feedback from S(M)E perspective

[Lars Francke <lars.francke@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for starting this work. I understand it can be discouraging
to receive criticism when you’ve put a lot of effort into something,
so please take my feedback with a grain of salt.

It seems that many participants on the call were not made aware of the
charter beforehand and had no time to review it. The deadline is
tight, especially considering the numerous documents that need to be
reviewed and referenced, including:

Eclipse Foundation Bylaws
Eclipse Foundation Working Group Process
Eclipse Foundation Working Group Operations Guide
Eclipse Foundation Code of Conduct
Eclipse Foundation Communication Channel Guidelines
Eclipse Foundation Membership Agreement
Eclipse Foundation Intellectual Property Policy
Eclipse Foundation Antitrust Policy
Eclipse Foundation Development Process
Eclipse Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines
Eclipse Foundation Specification Process
Eclipse Foundation Specification License
Eclipse Foundation Technology Compatibility Kit License
Eclipse Foundation Membership Agreement

>From my short review, I agree with the feedback that the scope seems
too broad for my personal preference. I would appreciate a more
focused approach on CRA. Additionally, I was surprised by the need for
Eclipse to hire dedicated staff for this initiative. From the initial
ideas and announcements, I (wrongly) assumed this aimed to create a
community for interested parties (essentially a structured mailing
list) with Eclipse maybe providing meeting infrastructure and mailing
lists.

The charter states: "This working group is intended to bring together
key stakeholders from industry, small and medium enterprises (SMEs),
research, and open source foundations."

While open source foundations were well represented, as an SME
representative, I felt underrepresented. The entrance fee of €6,000
(if I read the table correctly, we have ~15 employees, so we don’t fit
into the lowest category) makes this working group inaccessible for
us. For comparison, a DIN membership would cost us ~€500. To me this
is ironic because this initiative was positioned as a way for the open
source community to participate in EU standardization processes, yet
this new working group seems more inaccessible than the "official"
routes at least if I'm not a steward but still participate in open
source work. If I take of my SME hat and put on the hat of me
maintaining an OSS github repo, where would that fit in?

I understand these are the Eclipse Foundation's rules, but for us and
other SMEs, these costs are prohibitive. If the intention is to bring
small enterprises to the table, as the charter suggests, it might be
worth considering setting this up outside of the Eclipse Foundation or
modifying the membership rules.

I've also received two emails after the meeting expressing concerns
about the "openness" of a group with such a high entrance fee, so I’m
not alone in these thoughts.

Again, I appreciate all the work being done. My intent is not to
complain but to provide constructive feedback. I understand it may be
difficult to change any rules, and some of my points may be based on
misunderstandings of the initial intent.

Cheers,
Lars