Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: JSR348-86
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: eduardo
Reporter: Alex Buckley
Votes: 0
Watchers: 1
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
jsr348

Improve clarity of Member definition

Created: 17/Aug/11 01:10 AM   Updated: 22/Sep/11 09:38 AM   Resolved: 10/Sep/11 12:32 AM
Component/s: Process Doc
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Issue Links:
Related

Tags:
Participants: Alex Buckley, Bill Shannon, dsline, eduardo and pcurran


 Description  « Hide

The sentence about five individual Members is intended to prohibit any company or organization (whether a Member or not) from obtaining de facto representation via individual Members. That is, the rule is not limited to five individual Members who are Member Representatives.

The rule could be made clearer by saying "as representatives for the same company or organization" rather than "a company or organization". (In case anyone reads "a" as "any".)

One could argue that normative rules do not belong in Definitions. The five-Members rule doesn't have an obvious home in the Process doc (perhaps the JSPA?). The "Spec Lead" definition has a redundant rule as noted elsewhere. The definition of "Profile Specification" contains clauses that would be better in 2.1.3.



pcurran added a comment - 17/Aug/11 01:25 AM

From another issue (now closed):

The use of the term "representatives" here may be confused with the definition of Member Representative. We need to say this differently.

Addressing both Alex's and my concerns, here's a suggested fix.

On lines 97-98 of the PR draft, replace:

"No more than five individual Members are permitted at any one time as representatives of a company or organization."

with:

"No more than five individual Members from the same company are permitted at any one time."

Note also that the words "individual Members" appear in red(line) even in the clean version of the draft.


pcurran added a comment - 17/Aug/11 01:28 AM

Re "One could argue that normative rules do not belong in Definitions. The five-Members rule doesn't have an obvious home in the Process doc (perhaps the JSPA?)."

I agree (had a discussion with Eduardo about exactly this.) Since we're not changing the JSPA now we couldn't find anywhere else to put this requirement.

Re: "The definition of "Profile Specification" contains clauses that would be better in 2.1.3."

I'll open a new issue for this.


pcurran added a comment - 17/Aug/11 04:25 AM

Re the use of the term "representatives"

I'm getting confused. The term was chosen deliberately, since we want to make it clear that where someone "represents" a corporation or an organization (in the sense of the term Member Representative: "A person who is an employee or agent of a Member company or a Member organization *and who has been authorized by that Member to represent its interests within the JCP." then the limit of 5 applies, but otherwise not.

This distinction is critical, since JUG members are not authorized to represent the interests of the JUG within the JCP. So, the limit of 5 would not apply to them. It would apply to employees or contractors to corporations, and also to direct employees of non-profits such as Apache, but not to individuals who are "members" of Apache or W3C projects.

I've been trying to avoid having to define Non-Member Representative, but I'm not sure we can. Maybe defining Representative and deriving the other terms from this would help?

See my next comment for a summary of what we're trying to achieve.


pcurran added a comment - 17/Aug/11 04:49 AM - edited

It's difficult to define this with simplicity and clarity, but here's what we're trying to achieve with all this talk of Members and Representatives:

  • An organization (corporation or non-profit) can join as an organization.
  • Such an organizational member gets one vote in elections.
  • Any number of people who are associated with that organization can participate in the JCP as if they were members in their own right, but they don't have to sign an individual JSPA.
    • They do have to sign an Exhibit B ("employer release") if they want to join an Expert Group.
  • Some people who are associated with an organization are authorized by that organization to represent its interests.
    • For example, employees of or contractors to corporations or non-profits are authorized to represent their organization.
    • Members of JUGs, or people who belong to an Eclipse or Apache project are not authorized to represent their orgaization (the JUG, Eclipse or Apache.)
  • Authorized representatives of an organization (whether or not this organization is a Member of the JCP) are subject to certain limitations:
    • No more than 5 (I think we should reduce this to 2 or 3) can join the JCP as individuals
    • They may not run for election in their own right
    • They don't get a separate vote in elections.
    • Because people who belong to JUGs, or who participate in Apache or Eclipse projets (for example) are not authorized to act on behalf of their organization, they are not subject to this restriction.

Alex Buckley added a comment - 18/Aug/11 01:10 AM

Can a person who is associated with an organizational member join the JCP in their own right? If so, no more than five, right?

When a person who is a "member in their own right" moves into the employ of an organizational member, do they lose their individual membership? If so, is the loss immediate or only when an n'th such person moves over?

Are all persons associated with an organizational member also authorized representatives?

Proposal:

You can either have three kinds of thing (Organizational Member, Organizational Member Representative, and Private Member) or two kinds of thing (Organizational Member and Individual Member). I prefer the second since it cleanly lets you speak of "Member", a common thing to want. The cost of the second is occasionally having to partition Individual Members into those associated with an Organizational Member ("reps") and those who are not.

  • Membership

1. A JCP Member is an Organizational Member or an Individual Member.

2. An Organizational Member is an organization (corporation or non-profit) who has signed the JSPA and is abiding by its terms.

3. An Individual Member is a person who:

  • has signed the JSPA and is abiding by its terms; or
  • is associated with an Organizational Member.

4. At most five Individual Members who are associated with an organization (corporation or non-profit) that is not an Organizational Member may represent its interests in the JCP.

(I presume dozens of Individual Members can represent an organization's interests if the organization is an Organizational Member that they're associated with.)

  • Expert Group Composition

An Expert is a Member who has expert knowledge of, and is an active practitioner in, the technology covered by a JSR.

An Expert Group is a group of Experts who develop or make... An Expert who is an Individual Member associated with an Organizational Member must sign Exhibit B to join an Expert Group.

A Spec Lead is an Expert responsible for leading the effort to develop or make...

  • Voting

An Organizational Member gets one vote in elections.

An Individual Member who is not associated with an Organizational Member gets one vote in elections.


Bill Shannon added a comment - 18/Aug/11 03:43 AM

Currently, an Individual Member is not associated with an organization.
It would be confusing to change that. Even if they're employed by an
organization (member or not), they need a signed Exhibit B and then
act as if they were not associated with any organization.

Above it says:

  • Any number of people who are associated with that organization can participate in the JCP as if they were members in their own right, but they don't have to sign an individual JSPA.
  • They do have to sign an Exhibit B ("employer release") if they want to join an Expert Group.

That's confusing. If I'm representing my company, I don't need an Exhibit B.
Exhibit B is my company's way of releasing me and saying I'm on my own.

If I'm joining as an individual, representing myself, even though employed by
a company, I do need to sign the JSPA and I need an Exhibit B. Since I'm
representing myself and not my company, I need to agree to the JSPA.

Also, if I understand correctly, only employees of a JUG or Apache or Eclipse
can represent those organizations. A JUG member can only join as an individual.
(In the past we've allowed individuals to join expert groups and represent
Apache, for instance.)


dsline added a comment - 18/Aug/11 04:56 AM - edited

Bill,

I'm not sure about the Apache or Eclipse membership roles, but a JUG membership is almost like an education/non profit (which is what I believe the form I used when I filled out the JCP agreements for the JUGs I've been a part of). One of the nice things about a JUG membership, is that you have the benefits of a corporate/educational/non profit membership.These memberships were free membership that started to be offered about 4 years or so ago (+/- a year or so). This membership allows the members of a particular JUG to have a voice without going through an individual JSPA.

In looking at this debate further (also in response to issue 88 which info can be merged into this issue later), maybe we take a step back and look at the types of "member categories" we are representing (my apologies if some of these have already been covered in previous posts/issues):

1. Individuals
2. Companies
3. Educational/Non Profit
4. Existing Licenses
5. JUGS (I believe we fall under the Education/Non Profit area).

Note: If the document is breaking down the member categories specificially, do we need to add a process that allows the JCP to add in more member categories later?

For each of these 5 categories, we should looking at the following questions, which may help clarify the categories more consistently.
A. Total Number of Members (including rules for automatic inclusion)
B. Total Number of named contacts (primary/secondary)
C. Observer Rules
D. Spec Lead Rules
E. Expert Group Rules
F. Executive Committee Rules
G. Voting Rules - I think we can all agree that each "member" within the 5 categories above only gets a single vote.

I think we can all agree that each "member" within the 5 categories above only gets a single vote.

I believe a person's individual membership shouldn't automatically change if they move to an employer who is a member of the JCP. They may want to have a voice that is independent of their employers. It is, however an individual member's responsibility to check with their employer to make sure there are not any conflicts or policies that would prevent them from maintaining their Individual membership. What if this individual is already a spec lead, part of an expert group for a jsr, or an EC member? What would happen in those cases, especially if their employer is already an EC member.

If we did remove their individual membership, would their membership automatically revert back to an individual membership if they left their current employer who is a JCP member?

Keep in mind, when a member is elected or ratifieid to the EC, the members vote on what "member" and the individual representing the member they would like to serve on the EC. For example when I ran earlier this year for the EC role, the member group was "Central Ohio Java Users Group", and I was the contact representing the group.

Just my two cents,
Dan Sline
JCP Liaison, Central Ohio Java Users Group and JUG-USA


Bill Shannon added a comment - 18/Aug/11 08:39 PM

Yes, you're right, we need to tease apart all the aspects of the different types
of membership and make sure it makes sense when we're done. In addition to your
A-G, add H) Cost to join the JCP.

> I believe a person's individual membership shouldn't automatically change if
> they move to an employer who is a member of the JCP.

We could argue about "automatically", but the big issue here is IP rights.
Typically an employee of a company will be required to assign their IP rights
to the company. In that case, we would either need a signed Exhibit B for
the employee to continue to represent themselves, or they would need to be
converted to be a representative of the company. And then we need to decide
what happens if either of those events causes any of the defined limits to be
exceeded. Some of this is similar to the case of one company acquiring another
company.

Some of these rules might be easier to describe if we consider them equivalent
to the member "leaving" the JCP and reapplying.


dsline added a comment - 18/Aug/11 11:12 PM

All,

First off, if you look at the cost to join the JCP, most JUGs that I know of in the states (even other user groups that I've been part of over the years) don't take in any money, so my request to the group and the JCP, is that the JUGS remain free since they are a great way to get community involvement with the JCP.

Second, Bill made a good point about the IP issue. Either the JSPA for an individual (where a signature is needed) needs to state when they change employers they need to get a new updated JSPA from their new employer, or we leave it up to the individual member to get the necessary permissions from their employer before continuing with the JCP as an individual member. The question for the group is which option do you prefer (either requiring the new JSPA or using the honor system). If the JCP decides to require new JSPA, how do we enforce those guidelines? I think part of the answer also depends on what the member intends to do with their JCP membership. Are they simply a silent observer who votes in the EC elections, or are they active members (Spec Leads, Expert Group members, EC members, etc) who would otherwise require a fully signed JSPA. I think part of this debate may be handled in part now, and in part when the JSPA undergoes its changes.

Dan Sline
JCP Liaison, Central Ohio Java Users Group and JUG-USA


pcurran added a comment - 25/Aug/11 11:41 PM

Linking to http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR348-8 before closing that issue and consolidating the discussion here.


pcurran added a comment - 30/Aug/11 10:08 PM

I've created a summary document containing a mimimal set of changes that I propose to make. See http://java.net/downloads/jsr348/Working%20documents/Membership-AUG-31-2011.html.

Note that on legal advice we will need to postpone any restrictions on individuals who wish to join the organization until JSR3, when we modify the JSPA. This means that we cannot implement the proposed restriction on the number of employees of non-member companies who may join as individuals.

In an earlier comment Dan Sline suggested that we may want to clarify the following areas for each category of member.

A. Total Number of Members (including rules for automatic inclusion)
B. Total Number of named contacts (primary/secondary)
C. Observer Rules
D. Spec Lead Rules
E. Expert Group Rules
F. Executive Committee Rules
G. Voting Rules

A is off-llimits, as discussed above. In the document I deal with G and touch on E. B is not a matter for the Process Document (we don't even specify rules for this - nor should we, I believe - in the Standing Rules. I don't believe there are any implications for C since this isn't even a formally-defined term. The rules for Executive Committee membership are already clear, and I think we've already clarified the Spec Lead situation by judicious use of the term Member Representative.

Please review the document and comment in this thread.

Thanks...
I've dealt with A and G,


pcurran added a comment - 09/Sep/11 11:52 PM

New/changed definitions

Agent: an individual - for example an employee, a contractor, or an officer - who is authorized to act on behalf of a company or organization.

Java Community Process Member (Member): A company, organization, or individual that has signed the JSPA and is abiding by its terms.

Member Representative: An Agent of a Member company or a Member organization who represents its interests within the JCP.

Member Associate: An individual who is assoicated with a Member organization but is not an Agent of that organization.

Lines 687-690

Change:

"All JCP Members are eligible to vote in ballots for Ratified and Elected Seats subject to the provision that if a Member has majority-ownership of, or is the employer of, one or more other Members, then that group of Members will collectively have 1 vote, which will be cast by the person they designate to be their representative for the ballot in question.

To:

"All JCP Members are eligible to vote in ballots for Ratified and Elected Seats subject to the provisions that if a Member has majority-ownership of one or more other Members, or if one or more Members are Agents of another Member, then that group of Members will collectively have one vote, which will be cast by the person they designate to be their representative for the ballot in question."

Lines 715-716

Change:

"except that employees of JCP Members cannot run for Elected Seats as individuals"

To:

"except that Agents of JCP Members cannot run for Elected Seats as individuals"

Lines 262-265

Change (note that we've lost some text here - we intended to require that details of the nomination be published):

"Any JCP Member or Member Representative can request to join an Expert Group at any time by submitting their nomination via the online form provided on the JSR Page. The nomination, together with the Spec Lead's official response, substantive deliberations within the EG about this matter, and any other official decision related to EG."

To:

"Any JCP Member, Member Representative, or Member Associate may request to join an Expert Group at any time by submitting their nomination via the online form provided on the JSR Page. Member Associates, since they are not covered by the JSPA of their organization, must sign the JSPA in their own right before they will be permitted to join an Expert Group. Details of such requests, together with the Spec Lead's official response, substantive deliberations within the EG about the matter, and any other official decisions related to EG membership must be published through the EG's public communication channel."


eduardo added a comment - 10/Sep/11 12:32 AM

Latest modifications have been incorporated


pcurran added a comment - 22/Sep/11 09:38 AM

Closed, as agreed at the September 21 Working Group meeting.