| Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection |
Werner
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:
1. Re: Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
(Ondrej Mih?lyi)
2. Re: Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
(Ondrej Mih?lyi)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:18:05 +0000
From: Ondrej Mih?lyi <ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo
selection
Message-ID:
<VI1PR0302MB2736A70B25E4E020E441C6D39DA30@VI1PR0302MB2736. >eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Werner,
Your numbers aren't correct. The charter as of now says that each committee has "at least" one seat for committer members. That means one or more per committee and not at most one as you wrote. Mike has clarified that the expected number of non-vendor committers and collaborators is "tens" rather than "thousands" so it should be fine.
But I like Guillermo's suggestion to specify a ratio for committer members. E.g. it could be a range from 10%-20% and there would always be at least one seat for a committer member as is proposed now.
The current charter states for most committees that:
- each strategic partner (mostly big vendors) has a seat (I expect around 4)
- at least 2 seats for influencers (enterprise or strategic Eclipse members)
- at least 1 seat for participants (enterprise, strategic and solution members)
- at least 1 seat for committers
That would be at least 7 non-committer seats. With 7 non-committer seats, 10-20% would mean there is only 1 committer member (2 out of 9 is more than 20%). WIth 8 non-committer seats that would be 1-2 committer members (2 out of 10 is exactly 20%).
Cheers,
Ondro Mih?lyi
Senior Payara Service Engineer
Payara Server ? Robust. Reliable. Supported.
E: ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ondrej.mihalyi@payara. fish > | T: +1 415 523 0175 | M: +421 902 079 891
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------
Payara Services Limited, Registered office: Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | www.payara.fish<http://www.payara.fish/ > | info@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:info@payara.fish > | @Payara_Fish<https://twitter.com/Payara_Fish >
________________________________
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org > on behalf of Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 28 March 2018 08:03:40
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Don't want to go into number discussions, but we all know there will be a lot of contributions from non commiter, mostly individual people.
The vendor commiter/individual committer ratio might be around 10:1, but the community contributing to the project will be much larger than its commiter count.
Anyway, as I said, this concerns can be easily mitigated by defining a ratio where (just an example) every 5 vendor commiters, there's an elected individual. That ensures the community will always have the same amount of control even in the case lots of vendors begin interested on the project (hope that comes a reality!).
Do you think that could be feasible?
Regards,
Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero
El mi?., 28 mar. 2018 a las 1:06, Mike Milinkovich (<mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org <mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse- >>) escribi?:foundation.org
On 2018-03-27 2:36 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> Although Markus may sometimes express his point a little more
> drastically, he does have a point on this.
>
> He did not ask about general Eclipse committer membership which is
> free. Out of the thousand or more committer members only one may be
> elected into some or all of the Jakarta EE WG committees, that seems
> given right now, unless the number changes slightly, but 1, 2 or 3 I
> am sure there won't be more representatives of "the community" if you
> include the odd JUG that can afford the 5k$ annual fee.
Your reference to "...the thousand or more committer members..." is
bogus. That number is (I assume) a reference to the total of ~1500
current committers across all Eclipse projects. So far there are 103
EE4J committers, of which most work for member companies Oracle, IBM,
Red Hat, Payara, Tomitribe, etc. There is somewhere around 10-ish
individual committers in EE4J that will be represented by one seat on
the spec and steering committees. Even if those numbers go up by 2 or 3
times as the rest of the projects roll in, the population to
representation ratio is closer to 10:1 than 1000:1 on an order of
magnitude basis.
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org <mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse- >foundation.org
(m) +1.613.220.3223<tel:+1%20613-220-3223>
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20180328/de1f17a3/attachment. html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:29:50 +0000
From: Ondrej Mih?lyi <ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo
selection
Message-ID:
<VI1PR0302MB2736CE7C5E3EF3E29DDBC9809DA30@VI1PR0302MB2736. >eurprd03.prod.outlook.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi Mariano,
I think I understand Markus' point very well.
I think that there are already enough ways to influence and participate in steering Jakarta EE even for committers and contributors. You have to understand that companies and institutions like LJC are not a single individual but also represent many people, interests and also a lot of investment.
I believe it's OK if the community is represented in the committees at the same level as any other member since, as clarified by Mike Millinkovich earlier, there aren't so many active individuals in Jakarta EE projects and their number can be compared to a number of committers from a bigger company. I clarified the numbers in my other post here: https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ee4j-community/ msg01327.html
If time shows that there are much more individual contributor voices than it seems now, I would be one of the first vendor representatives to advocate for increasing the number of commiter members in Jakarta EE committees. But for now I think 10-20% is enough.
Cheers,
Ondrej Mih?lyi
Senior Payara Service Engineer
Payara Server ? Robust. Reliable. Supported.
E: ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ondrej.mihalyi@payara. fish > | T: +1 415 523 0175 | M: +421 902 079 891
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------
Payara Services Limited, Registered office: Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | www.payara.fish<http://www.payara.fish/ > | info@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:info@payara.fish > | @Payara_Fish<https://twitter.com/Payara_Fish >
________________________________
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org > on behalf of Mariano Amar <mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 27 March 2018 20:39:15
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Hi Ondrej,
I believe you're missing Markus' point completely.
It's not that any person could go all the way up to being a committee member without paying one cent.
The point he's trying to make is that the power of the average individual in the community is pretty much nil. This is a matter of power being completely skewed towards the paying members, where they get one seat each just for paying, while thousands of individuals, together, get a single seat (maybe two, or three at best).
That means that, while I would need to work my *** off, and greatly contribute to the Jakarta EE project for years, and then become recognized enough to win a vote for a single seat in a specific committee, I could just as well gain a single seat in every single committee by paying a fee.
Yes, it's not as simple as just paying the fees (you need to have a certain amount of employees/members in a group that are dedicated committers), but that actually just widens the breach, as you not only need to pay the fee, you have to sustain a handful of committers.
I'm not going to ask for a direct democracy, that's just insane. I'm ok with weighted votes. But the disparity in the current weights makes the belief of the general community having any power an utter fallacy.
Yes, we'll have full control over the direction of any sub-project we're directly involved with. That's not a lie.
But you seem to be ignoring the fact those projects cannot be considered part of Jakarta EE, or their processes be considered to follow Jakarta specs, or their inclusion be guaranteed into the umbrella project, without approval from the WGs, where we won't have any power at all.
Regards,
Mariano Amar
[http://www.google.com/a/cpanel/wes-it.com/images/logo. ]<http://gif?service=jotspot www.wes-it.com/ >
Mariano Amar
Senior Consultant
email/hangouts: mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:franco.guarnieri@wes- it.com >
skype: marianoamar
www.wes-it.com<http://www.wes-it.com/ >
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTR?NICO
Esta comunicaci?n contiene informaci?n que es confidencial y tambi?n puede contener informaci?n privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribuci?n, copia o uso de esta comunicaci?n o la informaci?n que contiene est? estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicaci?n por error por favor notif?quelo por correo electr?nico(info@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx>) o por tel?fono (+54 11 3249 7503)
This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx >) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Ondrej Mih?lyi <ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ondrej.mihalyi@payara. fish >> wrote:
Hi Markus,
Sometimes it's really difficult to understand you. Steve described that you don't have to pay anything to become a committer and subsequently to become a Jakarta EE committee member. I believe this answers your original concern.
There's no pay-to-play for community committers. Pay-to-play principle only applies to organizations that want to influence Jakarta EE and I think it's fair because organizations usually have money and profit from Jakarta EE in some way unlike independent community contributors.
Cheers,
Ondrej Mih?lyi
Senior Payara Service Engineer
Payara Server ? Robust. Reliable. Supported.
E: ondrej.mihalyi@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ondrej.mihalyi@payara. fish > | T: +1 415 523 0175 | M: +421 902 079 891
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------
Payara Services Limited, Registered office: Unit 11, Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern, WR14 3SZ
Registered in England and Wales: 09998946 | www.payara.fish<http://www.payara.fish/ > | info@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:info@payara.fish > | @Payara_Fish<https://twitter.com/Payara_Fish >
________________________________
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx >> on behalf of Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx< mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: 27 March 2018 20:00:18
To: 'EE4J community discussions'
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Steve,
fair enough, but it seems you misunderstood my initial claim: I did never say that one has to pay to contribute / commit, but that there is pay-to-play in the foundation's committees.
Anyways, I think everybody understood our different visions.
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse. >] On Behalf Of Steve Millidge (Payara)org
Sent: Dienstag, 27. M?rz 2018 19:39
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
I am simply trying to provide facts for other readers on the list that it is simply not true that you have to pay fees to contribute or become a member of a committee or even the board of the Eclipse Foundation.
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx >> On Behalf Of Markus KARG
Sent: 27 March 2018 18:15
To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Steve,
your long copy of the well-known facts simply reads like pure sarcasm from the view of the average individual contributor, and particular to me (as the addressee of your plea) as a committer to many open source projects since decades. You're just delivering excuses for the de-facto pay-to-play model of the EF, with a smug undertone that one may do all the work for free if not willing to pay the fees for having a seat in the "reserved-for-paying-members" committees. Any fee larger than a few bucks clearly is ruling out individuals (even committer members). My employer is tiny and does not benefit from EE4J or any other EF project at all. He will never pay any fees just for my personal interest in the Eclipse Foundation's several committees (like the EE4J spec committee in particular). Same for many other contributors / committers. And no, I do not see any proof that the majority does work for huge companies as you assume. Payara and Tomitribe make money with EE4J. Contributors typical
ly do not.
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Steve Millidge (Payara)
Sent: Dienstag, 27. M?rz 2018 10:51
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Markus,
An individual can contribute freely through the EE4J projects, they can raise issues, discuss on mailing lists, create PRs and contribute code. The projects are self governing and under the control of the group of committers that make up the project. Therefore if an individual wants to be involved in the technical direction of JakartaEE this is the way to do it. There are no fees to do this.
An individual can then be elected to be a committer on a project by the existing group of committers for the project under the governance rules of the specific EE4J project. This gives them write access to the repositories associated with that project including website, wiki and other documentation etc. There are no fees to do this.
An individual once a committer can become a committer member which is a formal individual membership of the Eclipse Foundation by signing the Eclipse Membership agreement. There are no fees to do this.
Now if an individual wishes to get involved with the governance of the foundation itself rather than the projects. They are free to stand for elections for any committee of the Eclipse Foundation including a seat on the board. Board membership is a formal board seat with all the fiduciary and legal duties of a full Director of the foundation. There are no fees to do this.
There are other classes of membership for corporations and these are all outlined here https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/2018-01_Eclipse_ with all their fee schedules, rights and responsibilities. Note there is not a ?Vendors? membership class. An individual can also lobby their employer to become a member of the Eclipse Foundation at one of these membership levels and pay some fees to the Eclipse Foundation and become their corporate representative.MEMBERSHIP_AGMT.pdf
Payara and Tomitribe have joined the Eclipse Foundation as Strategic Members and have therefore paid these fees and acquired the responsibilities but we also gain the same rights as a big corporation paying much larger fees, this is laudable of the Eclipse Foundation.
Payara are small and likely much smaller than the employers of many individual contributors. Many of those employers will use the outputs of the EE4J project and the open source ?vendors? for free while creating paid for software for their customers which is their right under the licenses. However Open Source software is not free to create.
Mike and his team have a specific recruitment drive to get corporations who are large users of what will be JakartaEE technology to become members and contribute both money and time. Please encourage your employer to do the same.
Steve
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx >> On Behalf Of Markus KARG
Sent: 26 March 2018 21:55
To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Ivar,
you misunderstood me.
1. Individual contributors CANNOT become members FOR FREE. Only COMMITTERs can become members FOR FREE. Not every contributor is a committer, even if his input is very valueable for both, the projects and the EF as a whole. Only CODE-contributors can become commiters, but input is not always code. If I wouldn't be a JAX-RS committer, I wouldn't have a vote without payment, independent of my knowledge and history in Java EE.
2. AFAIK all commiters will share ONE seat, but I might be wrong here. Will the committers really have the same amount of seats as the paying vendors?
BTW, I am already a committer member. Seems the PMC has no list of these?
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Ivar Grimstad
Sent: Montag, 26. M?rz 2018 21:26
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
Markus,
I think you are wrong on a couple of points here.
1. Individual contributors CAN become members. I, for example is an individual contributor and a Committer Member and it does not cost me a penny.
2. As a Committer member, I can run for election for the Steering-, Specification- and Marketing Committees of the Jakarta EE working group. Still without paying. And with the same rights as the paying Influencer- and Participant member companies. They also have to be elected.
So, I encourage you to become a committer member (two docs to sign). It does not cost you anything other than the time you're already spending.
Ivar
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:25 PM Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Steve,
you miss the point that individual contributos cannot become members, and that committer members do not have the same powers than paying members have. So what you actually express is simply a commitment to the pay-to-play rules of the EF, which is exactly what I dislike most with the EF. For me, the powers in the EF should get discoupled from the payments. In fact I am willing to donate money to the EF, but I am not willing to spend thousands of dollars just to gain the same rights.
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse. >] On Behalf Of Steve Millidge (Payara)org
Sent: Montag, 26. M?rz 2018 12:40
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Community Control was Jakarta EE logo selection
?The Community? is a broad constituency and I don?t think any of us would claim to speak for the whole of the community.
Saying that I feel I have to speak up for the Eclipse Foundation here.
The Eclipse Foundation is a small approx. $6M annual budget https://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/reports/annual_ , not for profit, member supported organisation. There are many classes of membership open to both corporations, not for profits; vendors; end-users and individuals. The smallest fees for small companies is $1,500 per year to be a Solutions Member and $25,000 to be a Strategic Member with the same rights and representation as larger members. While these fees are not likely affordable for an individual, individual committers are still represented on the board and on the committees of the working group through committer elections. The Foundation?s governance is open https://www.eclipse.org/org/report.php documents/ and ran by members in accordance with its constitution. The membership fees drive the work of the Foundation.
Therefore if members of the community wish to make the rules and have control over the Eclipse Foundation and over JakartaEE the community is free to join the Eclipse Foundation, the JakartaEE WG and/or contribute to EE4J projects. I would encourage all out there that care passionately about Jakarta EE to get involved individually if you can. Alternatively if your employer is heavily dependent on JakartaEE technologies and wants control or influence over the Eclipse Foundation ask them to become members and participate.
Saying all that EE4J projects are governed by the Eclipse Development Process https://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/ through open source rules of engagement and there are no fees to join the individual projects, contribute, become a committer and drive the overall technical direction through contributions.development_process.php
Steve
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > <ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx >> On Behalf Of Markus KARG
Sent: 24 March 2018 07:24
To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
Mike,
thanks for clarification.
I think we all would be happy if simply you could confirm that the marketing team did not do any kind of "preselection" by other criteria than just *legal* issues. In particular, they did not rule out logos due to personal taste, style, or design choice. Right?
What the community expects is to have control over Jakarta EE (in the sense of making the rules for the EF, not the EF making the rules for the community). This includes that the EF asks the community *before* the EF acts. And with "community" I do not mean "only paying vendors" but also the majority of committers (even non-member committers).
-Markus
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx ] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Freitag, 23. M?rz 2018 22:31
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
On 2018-03-23 4:27 PM, Jason Greene wrote:
I read that differently. My interpretation is: They just eliminated candidates that failed to meet the design criteria, which did include a basic legal component. The next step is a more thorough legal analysis as well as a brand review from the foundation?s marketing team. From that process they will pick the strongest contenders. Both of these functions are pretty standard (Also really important for major industry marks) and based on expertise & analysis, and while we all have some biases, I seriously doubt this is driven by simple personal preferences.
This is correct. We removed the ones that did not meet the design criteria as stated in writing. This included removing the ones that we knew had legal issues. Now we are going to do more reviews, including deeper legal ones.
The community will have an opportunity to select from a number of options.
Is the concern more that there will be too few options and you guys might not like the options, or is it that there is some nefarious purpose? If it?s the latter what would they have to gain?
On Mar 23, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Richard Monson-Haefel <rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rmonson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> wrote:
Right. Some were removed for legal reasons but the rest was a subjective decision by the marketing team.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
I understood the original mail in a way that from all submissions the EF
removed everything but left over only four due to a pre-selection by their
*marketing* team (not *legal* team).
-Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx >
[mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse. >] On Behalf Of Heiko W. Rupporg
Sent: Freitag, 23. M?rz 2018 20:07
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Jakarta EE logo selection process - next steps
On 23 Mar 2018, at 18:35, Markus KARG wrote:
> I second that. The EF should simply remove those logos which are
> legally problematic, and then let the community vote for their
> favorite. This is a community project, and
Isn't that what
| > * We will hold a community vote to determine which of these
| > final candidate logos should be the chosen logo.
says?
I understand Paul that the EF needs to (to quote you) "remove those logos
which are legally problematic", which is done by the marketing team, as they
know this process of removal best.
But then I may be wrong.
Heiko
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
--
Java Champion, JCP EC/EG Member, EE4J PMC, JUG Leader
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ee4j-community@eclipse. org >
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20180328/aaba63ac/attachment. html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 7, Issue 132
**********************************************