jsr348
  1. jsr348
  2. JSR348-8

The prohibition on employees of JCP Members voting or running for election as individuals doesn't go far enough

    Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The new language that prohibits employees of member companies running for election or voting in their own right covers one important case but it does nothing to guard against the case where a company does not join the JCP in its own right, but instead encourages many of its members to join as individuals.

      Suggested change: state that no more than five members of a company be permitted to join as individuals. (The PMO would have to police this, but they do have the means to do so through the Exhibit B's.)

      We might want to similarly prohibit employees of non-profits, for example, Apache or Eclipse. (We should not impose similar prohibitions on JUG members.)

      The distinction seems to be whether the "employee" (or, in the new broader terminology Member Representative is "empowered to act in the name of or on behalf of the organization.") If we can come up with a suitable definition here it might also address the point raised in email discussion that "employee" doesn't cover the case where someone is working for a company as a contractor.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          OK - I now understand what you're saying.

          However, your text doesn't actually say "for any given company or organization" any more than mine does.

          We both use the term "a company or organization" and I still maintain that we're saying the same thing, only I'm saying it in a few less words.

          However, this is nit-picking and we've spent more words discussing it than we might have saved. If you prefer your version then OK. Let's move on to something more important.

          (My main point was that we're not explicitly dealing with the JUG situation. Let's see whether others are concerned about that...)

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - OK - I now understand what you're saying. However, your text doesn't actually say "for any given company or organization" any more than mine does. We both use the term "a company or organization" and I still maintain that we're saying the same thing, only I'm saying it in a few less words. However, this is nit-picking and we've spent more words discussing it than we might have saved. If you prefer your version then OK. Let's move on to something more important. (My main point was that we're not explicitly dealing with the JUG situation. Let's see whether others are concerned about that...)
          Hide
          keilw added a comment -

          Are JUGs the only organizations this should cover? I know, Patrick specified earlier, "employee" was the only formal member of such group, so except people on its payroll like e.g. Mike or Wayne for Eclipse, anybody who is a committer to Apache, Eclipse or similar foundations wouldn't count?

          I hope that anwers above question, too? With "every member" I mean people who signed a committer agreement similar to the JSPA with any of these organizations.

          Show
          keilw added a comment - Are JUGs the only organizations this should cover? I know, Patrick specified earlier, "employee" was the only formal member of such group, so except people on its payroll like e.g. Mike or Wayne for Eclipse, anybody who is a committer to Apache, Eclipse or similar foundations wouldn't count? I hope that anwers above question, too? With "every member" I mean people who signed a committer agreement similar to the JSPA with any of these organizations.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment - - edited

          I'm closing this issue. Let's take the discussion to the related (linked) issue http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR348-86

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - - edited I'm closing this issue. Let's take the discussion to the related (linked) issue http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR348-86
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          Temporarily reopening to fix the (circular) link in my last comment.

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - Temporarily reopening to fix the (circular) link in my last comment.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          And now closing again

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - And now closing again

            People

            • Assignee:
              eduardo
              Reporter:
              pcurran
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: