[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed EE.next Working Group

What about JUGs?

https://www.eclipse.org/membership/exploreMembership.php#tab-associate shows, LJC, SouJava and other not-for-profit organizations like the Meruvian Foundation by the late Frans Thamura are Associate Members and even they (not to mention Individuals unless they pay at least 1500$ to become a Solutions Member) would be prohibited.

WernerÂ



On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:00 PM, <ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
    ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."


Today's Topics:

 Â1. Re: [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed  EE.next
   Working Group (Heiko Rupp)
 Â2. Re: [eclipse.org-membership-at-large] Proposed  EE.next
   Working Group (Mike Milinkovich)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:13:57 +0100
From: "Heiko Rupp" <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
Cc: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large]
    Proposed    EE.next Working Group
Message-ID: <BACFDA50-50B2-442B-AEE4-A16C01183B37@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

On 5 Feb 2018, at 20:51, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

> A proposal has been made to establish the EE.next Working Group

The FAQ says "Strategic members are the vendors that deliver Java EE
implementations".

Can you please clarify the role of *projects* like TomEE or Hammock
that may also deliver an ee4j implementation. Are they included in the
term
"vendor" above?


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:31:51 +0100
From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
To: Heiko Rupp <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] [eclipse.org-membership-at-large]
    Proposed    EE.next Working Group
Message-ID:
    <743395A5-D5EF-4FEA-8525-9FE92C4F8B54@eclipse-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



> On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Heiko Rupp <hrupp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Feb 2018, at 20:51, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>
>> A proposal has been made to establish the EE.next Working Group
>
> The FAQ says "Strategic members are the vendors that deliver Java EE implementations".
>
> Can you please clarify the role of *projects* like TomEE or Hammock
> that may also deliver an ee4j implementation. Are they included in the term "vendor" above?

No, projects are not members. However, the legal entities that support those projects could join as Strategic Members.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 6, Issue 2
********************************************