Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting

[<Matt.Gerring@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

>From a Diamond standpoint, we would like to be a solutions member, so it is not an issue for us and we will try to take part in the group.

However Universities make up much of our user and developer base, there is relevant talent there which would not have buy-in and would not contribute domain expertise if a fee was enforced for their participation. 

There is some likelihood that we cannot reach the goal of a scientific inter-operable layer without the academics. Therefore in the case where associate members cannot be voting participants of the science group, we should consider removing the inter-operable part of the scope.

The group is still valid without this scope but changed in role, perhaps more of a forum for networking than a place to agree standards (as I say nothing wrong with that!). Those of us in the academic world could then consider if we still want to hang out and agree standards at meetings outside the eclipse foundation, the obvious one being how to agree to describe data in Java.

Sincerely,

Matt


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ola, Everyone

The draft proposes the following for such cases:

The University would become an Associate Member of the Eclipse 
Foundation, and be invited by the Steering Committee (SC) to be a Guest 
member for the Science Group.

The 1 year term (rather than permanent) is an opportunity for the SC to 
evaluate if that member is still active with the group. Active members 
don't need to rejoin, the SC renews them.

I think it's fair to say people were comfortable with this so far.

At issue is whether a Guest member has the same voting rights as a 
Participating member.

Andrew

On 08/04/14 15:27, Ola Spjuth wrote:
________________________________________
From: Ola Spjuth [Ola.Spjuth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 April 2014 20:27
To: Science Industry Working Group
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting

Being part of a university that will have difficulties with membership fees, did I interpret the discussion right that the preferred option to join is as Guest member on yearly basis? Sine the argument was made in the call that Guest memberships would be used sparingly, why not allow Associate members to participate? They are non-voting and free for universities.

Ola

On 8 apr 2014, at 20:36, Torkild Ulvøy Resheim <torkildr@xxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

> I will have to agree with Mike. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't see _why_ guest members should have any voting rights. I guess they will still be able to share their opinions, which is fair enough.
>
> Best regards,
> Torkild
>
> 8. apr. 2014 kl. 20:21 skrev Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>>> Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
>>
>> I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting     rights is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know why you would expect to get voting rights.
>>
>> That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
>>
>> --
>> Mike Milinkovich
>> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> +1.613.220.3223
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> science-iwg mailing list
>> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
>
> --
> Torkild Ulvøy Resheim
> Consultant / Eclipse Committer / Senior Software Developer
> Itema AS - http://itema.no
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> science-iwg mailing list
> science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg

_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg

--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom