Change membership types for "Member Participant"

[waynebeaton]

The EFSP currently defines a "Member Participant" as

A Member of the Eclipse Foundation including Solutions Member, Enterprise Member, or Strategic Member (as defined in the Eclipse Foundation Bylaws) that has one or more Committers on a Specification Project.

The membership levels have changed; "Solutions Member, Enterprise Member, or Strategic Member" should be updated to "Strategic and Contributing Member".

[waynebeaton]

The entire definition is not quite right.

Strictly speaking, I believe that we can reasonably assert that a Strategic or Contributing Member would be compelled to join the working group in order to have committer on a specification project operating under the purview of the working group. But the current phrasing leaves an impression that there is some wiggle room for a member company to become a Member Participant by getting a committer elected to the project without signing the corresponding WGPA. At very least, this is confusing.

I believe that the correct approach here is to defer to the Working Group Process. Note that the current Working Group Process incorrectly lists the membership types. We are in the process of updating that document to reflect the changes in the bylaws.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that this particular phrase predates the formalization of the Working Group Process.

Does this make sense to you @paulbuck?

[waynebeaton]

I decided to go with this (with actual links, of course):

A Strategic or Contributing Member of the Eclipse Foundation (as defined in the Eclipse Foundation Bylaws) that has executed the corresponding Working Group Participation Agreement (for more information, see the Member Roles and Agreements in the Eclipse Foundation Working Group Process).

[paulbuck]

Net here is the EFSP's Membership Participant definition has no dependency on how membership is defined for a working group, just Foundation membership as per the bylaws. That said, the EFSP in its body does make reference to "Strategic Members" which are only defined in the working group's charter if at all. Note that neither MicroProfile or AsciiDoc have Strategic Members, both have adopted the EFSP.

[mmilinkov]

I think Wayne's words work. He has stipulated that the Member Participant must be a voting member of the Eclipse Foundation (Contributing or Strategic) who has also signed the relevant working group participation agreement. Under that construction, the fact that MicroProfile and AsciiDoc have only one level of membership still works fine.

[paulbuck]

I agree, that said, I think my point is different, for example, in the body of the the EFSP it says "A Super-majority, including a Super-majority of the Strategic Members of the Working Group, is required to approve a Profile Specification.". The language refers to "Strategic Members of the Working Group", neither AsciiDoc or MicroPorfile have Strategic Members.

[mmilinkov]

Ahh. Got it. Perhaps that should be a separate issue?

[waynebeaton]

Ahh. Got it. Perhaps that should be a separate issue?

Yup. See #39.

[mmilinkov]

Perhaps you meant 39?

[waynebeaton]

Perhaps you meant 39?

Yup. Fixed. Thanks.