Attendees:
Fujitsu: Kenji Kazamura
IBM: Dan Bandera
Oracle: Will Lyons
Payara: Steve Millidge
Red Hat: Scott Stark
Tomitribe: Richard Monson-Hafael
Martijn Verburg
Ivar Grimstad (not present)
Eclipse Foundation: Mike Milinkovich
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss funding commitments from
Strategic Members of the Jakarta EE Working Group. We referenced
the draft minutes of the August 2 Budget Meeting below.
1) Oracle opened by saying it is prepared to commit to funding at
the option 1 level ($300K/year) for three years.
2) Fujitsu abstained at this time. Kenji is prepared to initiate
an approval request for funding at the option 1 level ($300K/year)
for three years, but it may take several months to obtain internal
approval and approval is uncertain. It is assumed that funding
commitment would be contingent on resolution of the javax
namespace requirement per the contingency statement below*.
3) IBM has not formally submitted an internal funding request.
IBM had assessed funding at $150K (year 1), $300K (year 2), and
$300K (year 3), and believed it was doable. IBM needs to go back
to evaluate funding at the option 1 level ($300K/year) for three
years. Funding commitment would be contingent on resolution of
the javax namespace requirement per the contingency statement
below*.
4) Payara can commit to funding at the option 1 level ($25K/year)
for three years. Funding commitment would be contingent on
resolution of the javax namespace requirement per the contingency
statement below*.
5) Red Hat needs to get confirmation from Mark Little on approved
funding levels. The request to Red Hat would be for funding at the
option 1 level ($300K/year) for three years. It is assumed that
funding commitment would be contingent on resolution of the javax
namespace requirement per the contingency statement below*.
6) Tomitribe can commit to funding at the option 1 level
($25K/year) for three years. Funding commitment would be
contingent on resolution of the javax namespace requirement per
the contingency statement below*. Tomitribe would prefer a
funding model which encourages contributions from other
contributions as well - for example $5K/year. This question of
how to encourage incremental funding from other members was
discussed and will be revisited at Steering Committee. Tomitribe
is willing to make the funding commitment above prior to
resolution of this question.
7) LJC intends to run a crowdfunding campaign to support Jakarta
EE. LJC believes a $5K contribution would be manageable in Year
1.
*Contingency statement: Commitment would be to year 1 funding and
two more years at the option 1 level, with option to withdraw
funding after year 1 if there is no progress on enabling evolution
of the current Java EE 8 technologies, including Java EE 8
specifications and including javax namespace evolution (use of
javax namespace for current specifications - no use of javax in
net new specifications).
Eclipse Foundation: This process will result in a participation
agreement - at some level if a WG/SC member cannot commit at the
level required, then they will not be able to participate at this
level. The Eclipse Foundation will attempt to be as flexible as
possible on this point, and sensitive to internal budget processes
of member organizations.
Next steps:
- We will follow-up on this topic specifically at next SC
meeting. The primary request is to IBM and Red Hat to obtain the
requested funding commitments.
- Assuming funding commitments are obtained, we would draft,
review and vote on a Steering Committee resolution with the
required funding levels.
- EF would draft a participation agreement based on the agreed
funding levels, with the contingency statement referenced above.
Draft minutes from Jakarta EE Steering Committee Budget
Meeting on August 2
( Note doodle poll for follow-up meeting week of August
20-27: https://doodle.com/poll/424g8efu9zzbiu8m
)
Attendees
Fujitsu: Kenji Kazamura
IBM: Dan Bandera
Oracle: Will Lyons
Payara: Steve Millidge
Red Hat: Scott Stark (joined towards end of meeting)
Tomitribe: Richard Monson-Hafael
Simon Maple
Ivar Grimstad
The discussion focused on review of Mike Milinkovich's email
sent on August 2 and appended below.
IBM, Fujitsu, Simon, Ivar felt Mike's email proposal was
reasonable.
Oracle's feedback was that the steady-state budget should be
closer to $1.5M. Will request input on budgets for similar
initiatives in other foundations as comparisons for Mike's
budget proposal.
Red Hat and Payara are concerned on the ability to execute based
on lack of progress on legal matters. Would like to see a
proposal to resolve the current roadblocks to evolving the javax
namespace.
Payara and Tomitribe felt the overall magnitude of the budget
felt large, but would like more input based on the expertise of
the large vendors.
Tomitribe would like to see a plan for ramping up participant
contributions.
Attendees agreed to review the proposal below within their
organizations and be prepared to discuss these proposals during
a meeting the week of August 20-27. A doodle poll has been
opened to schedule this meeting.
https://doodle.com/poll/424g8efu9zzbiu8m
Will
On 8/2/18 9:49 AM, Mike Milinkovich
wrote:
All,
For the Jakarta EE budget call today I would like to make
the conversation more concrete than it has been up to this
point.
- The Specification Process is in some disarray. So as
of this moment, we cannot commit to a specific release
date for innovative new Jakarta EE technologies in 2019.
Given that, we think that it does not make sense to
approach this budget conversation with any number higher
than Option 1, as shown below. So that means a $1.5M target
budget.
- Given the members around the table, the dues provided
to use should total $1.0M and $1.2M, leaving us with a
$450K to $250K gap that is going to have to be filled
with additional recruitment. But until that recruitment
happens, we have less than the anticipated budget to
spend.
- Based on the above we (the EMO) will construct a
budget that is a simple 50-50 split between headcount
and program spend. But to do that will require to
Steering and Marketing Committees to do more work on
prioritization than they have done to date. This makes
the Program Plan conversation more relevant, as we think
that's the vehicle to drive the prioritization
conversation.
- We will be looking for a three year commitment from
the members in order to provide for the certainty we
need to hire staff. This will require the development of
a Jakarta EE WG participation agreement.
- Of course, all of the above will require each company
to obtain internal budget approvals for the amounts.
Looking forward to our discussion.
Corporate Revenue
|
OPTION 1:
Annual Fees
$1.5M Target Budget
|
OPTION 2:
Annual Fees $2.5M Target Budget
|
OPTION 3:
Annual Fees
$3M Target Budget
|
Annual Corporate Revenues greater than $1 billion
|
$300,000
|
$500,000
|
$600,000
|
Annual Corporate Revenues greater than $500 million but less than or equal to $1 billion
|
$200,000
|
$300,000
|
$400,000
|
Annual Corporate Revenues greater than $100 million but less than or equal to $500 million
|
$100,000
|
$200,000
|
$300,000
|
Annual Corporate Revenues greater than $10 million but less than or equal to $100 million
|
$50,000
|
$75,000
|
$100,000
|
Annual Corporate Revenues less than or equal to $10 million
|
$25,000
|
$25,000
|
$25,000
|
![Avast logo]() |
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-steering mailing list
jakarta.ee-steering@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-steering
