Steering Committee Minutes 2007-05-03
From MemberWiki
URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Steering_Committee_Minutes_2007-05-03
(These minutes have been approved by Steering Committee vote.)
OpenAjax Alliance Steering Committee meeting minutes 2007-05-03
Attendees
- IBM/David Boloker
- NEXAWEB/Coach Wei
- ZEND/Michael Pinette
- ECLIPSE/Mike Milinkovich
- ZIMBRA/Scott Dietzen
- Jon Ferraiolo
(regrets from TIBCO/Kevin Hakman and DOJO/Alex Russell)
Original Agenda
- Agenda
- Marketing Working Group - you approved it!!!
- Interoperability Working Group
- Interoperability Working Group Creation Review phone call
- Thursday, May 3, 2007, 8amPST, noonEST, 6pmParis
- US toll-free: 1-888-227-9220, Int'l: 719-785-4480, Passcode 871757
- Member voting - May 4-May 11, 2007
- Steering Committee voting - May 11-May 18, 2007
- Interoperability Working Group Creation Review phone call
- New member to approve
- Rift Technologies (http://www.rift.fr) - Just a few words about us : We are creating and operating a software installation desk. It's a Web Platform from which you can create, install and share softwares in few mouse clicks. Of course everything is provided as Saas. Technically we're using Ruby, Rails & Ajax for the frontend.
- Gigahost wants to join - I asked for an explanation of why they want to join (from Members Agreement "if the applicant can demonstrate to the Steering Committee's ... satisfaction that it intends to support and promote the Purpose"), but haven't heard back yet. Just checking that this was the right thing to do.
- Individuals as members
- Had informal discussions with Jeff Thompson about how we might proceed
- One option to consider - burden on the individual
- In general, Steering Committee strongly prefers that, when an individual is employed, the individual's employer joins the alliance
- But on an exceptional basis (e.g., no employer or other special circumstances), if there is a track record and recognized leadership within Ajax community, the Steering Committee will consider a membership application from an individual
- Before an individual membership application will be considered, the individual:
- Must sign the members agreement and send information per http://www.openajax.org/join.html
- Must send an email stating that he is participating as an individual solely on behalf of himself, even if he is employed now, becomes employed later, or has a different employer later, and warrants that he will own the right to all IP for all Contributions that he provides to the alliance
- If this is OK, proposed next steps
- Final draft of exact words
- SC reviews final draft, gives tentative thumbs up
- All-member phone call, then electronic member voting
- SC votes and approves
- Proposed accessibility/508 mini-workshop phone call and web conference
- 2hours, led by Becky Gibson of IBM
- Status reports
- Marketing
- Interoperability
- IDE TF
- Comm Hub TF
- Security TF
- Mobile TF
Minutes
Topic: Marketing Working Group - you approved it!!!
(just a reminder that we now have a properly chartered and approved Marketing WG)
Topic: Interoperability Working Group
Jon: We have been working on this charter for months and finally had the creation review phone call earlier today. No problems were identified. Therefore, does anyone object to unanimous consent for proceeding with member voting on the WG tomorrow and then SC voting one week later?
(no objections)
Resolution: Submit Interoperability WG charter to members for voting tomorrow.
Topic: New member to approve
Jon: Just one new member, RIFT. They do SaaS using Ajax. Looks to me like they meet our criteria. Does anyone object to unanimous consent for approving RIFT as a member?
(no objections)
Resolution: RIFT is approved as a member.
Topic: Gigahost wants to join, but unclear motivation
Jon: Gigahost wants to join - I asked for an explanation of why they want to join (from Members Agreement "if the applicant can demonstrate to the Steering Committee's ... satisfaction that it intends to support and promote the Purpose"), but haven't heard back yet. Just checking that this was the right thing to do.
MikeM: Totally agree. This is a reasonable thing to do and in fact we need to do it for due diligence reasons.
Jon: Does anyone object to unanimous consent that this is the correct way to handle requests for applicants without evidence of supporting or promoting the Purpose?
(no objections)
Resolution: Need evidence of supporting or promoting the Purpose. If isn't obvious, then Jon needs to ask applicants for explanation and/or evidence.
Topic: Individuals as members
(Jon goes over proposed strategy:)
- One option to consider - burden on the individual
- In general, Steering Committee strongly prefers that, when an individual is employed, the individual's employer joins the alliance
- But on an exceptional basis (e.g., no employer or other special circumstances), if there is a track record and recognized leadership within Ajax community, the Steering Committee will consider a membership application from an individual
- Before an individual membership application will be considered, the individual:
- Must sign the members agreement and send information per http://www.openajax.org/join.html
- Must send an email stating that he is participating as an individual solely on behalf of himself, even if he is employed now, becomes employed later, or has a different employer later, and warrants that he will own the right to all IP for all Contributions that he provides to the alliance
MikeM: It is reasonable. Takes on a little more risk that inappropriate IP might leak in. We need to decide whether the extra risk is worth it. I think it is, but we need to be careful with the individual contributors.
Coach: I think the risk is worthwhile. Even with individual members, there is already a risk in the open source project via public contributions. We deal with that risk in the same manner as is proposed here.
Jon: Yes, in fact the open source project was used as the model for this proposal.
MikeP: Does the individual have to have a sign-off from their employer?
Jon: Employer sign-off is harder and not part of the current proposal.
MikeP: What is the value of individuals?
DavidB: Doug Crockford is an example. He would be a great asset but Yahoo refuses to join.
MikeP: Most employers have employement contracts that says all IP is owned by the company. What about a separate members agreement for individuals? I agree with getting individuals into the alliance but I don't want to introduce big problems.
MikeM: At Eclipse, we require employer consent forms but Apache does not.
DavidB: In Apache, each individual has to sign an agreement as if they were a corporation.
Jon: Worry is about individuals who sign an agreement with a consortium and also sign an employment agreement, contribute to the consortium without remembering the requirements of their employment agreement, and then employer gets unhappy.
MikeM: Apache has this problem.
Coach: Our open source project works like Apache.
Jon/Coach: Two branches to our open source project. If you work for a member company, you say that all contributions to open source project are on behalf of your company under terms of Members Agreement. Other branch is an individual. We haven't had any non-member contributors to the open source project.
Jon: Also, our open source project has two gatekeepers, the two admins for the open source project, myself and James Margaris of Nexaweb. We pay close attention to who becomes a contributor.
Coach: So, technically, we are assuming this risk already.
DavidB: Even with best of code sniffers things can get by.
Coach: Same sort of risk by following what Jon recommends. I don't think risk is substantially bigger if this is done on an exception basis.
MikeM: I really like the wording in the exception to achieve least exposure to risk. It is beneficial to have individual members. Just need to minimize chance of frivolous lawsuits.
DavidB: I am uneasy about this.
Mike: We went for an employer consent form because we have a key industry consortium and we have money in the bank.
DavidB: Wisdom of the past: ask employer. Wisdom of the Web: take them at their word, but assume the risk. I want to be conservative.
Coach: Proposal as it is now is fine. Not dramatically higher risk than we are assuming now. But add the additional requirement of the employer consent form.
Jon: What is in the employer consent form?
MikeM: I am the manager and I am aware that my employee is contributing to Eclipse.
MikeP: I see the business value. Have to be voted in. This form is another interim step. If it is a simple form, it sounds good to me.
MikeM: I will send the form.
Jon: Sounds good to me. Good to have a precedent with Eclipse.
MikeM: But don't overstate this precedent since Apache and others take different approaches.
Jon: Next steps then are to produce proposed final wording and a final consent form to be reviewed at a future SC phone call.
Topic: Proposed accessibility/508 mini-workshop phone call and web conference
DavidB: W3C work on accessible RIAs (ARIA). Specs and some widgets have been developed. Appropos to the whole Ajax community. The proposal is a conference call to go over ARIA and some of the widgets. Mainly educational and talk about next steps. Just wanted to make sure SC was OK with this.
Everyone: Sounds good.
Topic: IDE WG Creation Review phone call
For either June 21 or 28 there should be 4 SC members beyond Kevin. (No MikeM either day)
Topic: Next SC phone call
June 14.
