search

eclipse / microprofile-sandbox

Apache License 2.0
38 stars 54 forks source link

MPWG Fee Proposal #76

Closed starksm64 closed 4 years ago

starksm64 commented 4 years ago

Initial proposal for an MPWG fee structure

kwsutter commented 4 years ago

@starksm64 Just merged, but then I saw that the name of the file is misspelled... sponsorhsip.adoc :-( And, I would still provide a link to this from the MPWG doc or else it's just kind of lost... Nobody can easily find it. Thanks!

gunnarmorling commented 4 years ago

Came here to point out the typo in the filename, too. But also a question: can an org be both at once, project sponsor and spec sponsor? Would it do so in order to have influence via spec work and reputation from the project sponsorship via prominent website placement? Might be worth adding a sentence that one can have both roles, if true.

starksm64 commented 4 years ago

But also a question: can an org be both at once, project sponsor and spec sponsor? Would it do so in order to have influence via spec work and reputation from the project sponsorship via prominent website placement? Might be worth adding a sentence that one can have both roles, if true.

Both project and spec sponsors can fund spec developers. A spec sponsor is just a way for a company to join the MP working group and sign the working group agreement for IP capture without having to pay a separate fee. I can clarify that project sponsors are generally doing both.

starksm64 commented 4 years ago

The filename and Gunnar's questions about roles has been addressed in #77

waynebeaton commented 4 years ago

Working groups are a means for organizations to collaborate. Open source projects are means for developers to collaborate. Working groups do not own open source projects. With the exception of the specification committee's authority and responsibility regarding reviews for specification projects, working groups have no special authority over any open source projects that they consider to be under their purview. So, there is no direct line of authority (the role of the specification committee notwithstanding) from a working group to any open source project that permits the working group to instruct an open source project to do anything, including listing sponsors.

For completeness, a working group influences the direction of an open source project by having committers representing the interests of working group participants.

There are two ways to put a company logo on an Eclipse open source project (specification projects included): as a entry in a list of adopters without preference or bias, or as a project contributor. In the latter case, a company name and logo may be listed on a project page when the company is a member of the Eclipse Foundation and that company has at least one committer that has contributed at least one commit in the last three months. This is captured in the Eclipse Foundation Project Handbook.

The notion of direct/overt project sponsorship goes against vendor neutrality. A company may show their support for an open source project by contributing development resources.

Working groups are, however, not open source projects, and you have considerably more leeway. It is completely reasonable for a working group's website to provide preferential display of company logos to members, perhaps based on participation level.

starksm64 commented 4 years ago

The proposed indication of sponsorship levels is targeting the working group page, not specification project pages.

waynebeaton commented 4 years ago

The proposed indication of sponsorship levels is targeting the working group page, not specification project pages.

That is not clear to me from the text. "Project" has specific meaning in the Eclipse Foundation Development Process.