search

apastsya / jcpnext4

0 stars 0 forks source link

JCPNEXT4-2: Modify Process Document Definitions to reference Membership levels and other changes #11

Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Jira issue originally created by user heathervc:

In 'Section III. Definitions' of the Process Document, add the Membership Levels: Full Member: Full Membership with people able to associate to the Member. Note: also define 'Associate'. Affiliate Member: Individuals not associated with a Full Member. Partner: Java User Groups that are not legal entities. Observer: Exists already as a result of JCP.next transparency and participation initiatives. Fees: Include in definitions.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

See Issue 1 proposal for beginnings. https://java.net/downloads/jcpnext4/Working%20Documents/MembershipLevels.html

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

Also include definition for proxy in the use case of Full Members with multiple employed individuals ; see Issue #4.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

I presume this refers to the fact that if several individual members have the same employer they will get only one vote between them.

If so, I'm not sure we'll need an actual definition for Proxy. We have a similar provision today that is quite clear without adding a formal definition: "if a Member has majority-ownership of one or more other Members, then that group of Members shall collectively have one vote, which shall be cast by the person they designate to be their representative for the ballot in question."

Let's wait and see...

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Proposed fix

See the document Definition Changes for proposed changes to the Definitions section of the Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Suggested text has been incorporated into version 1 of the revised Process Document.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

We wanted to incorporate (waiver of) fees into the definitions as well; do not see reference in current version.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

The Definitions section is not where we should be providing details - and particularly not making policy statements such as "we intend to waive fees".

Definitions need to be as concise as possible.

I think having a separate subsection in the JSR Membership section labeled Membership Fees (which is what I did) should be sufficient.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by jpampuch:

I concur that this issue is addressed by section 3.1, subsections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4. This should be closed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Closing, on John's recommendation.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"