Update microprofile-standalone-working-group-proposal.adoc

[aeiras]

Today the MP media is managed the the active Microprofilers, not EF.
This is scalable and makes our community handsON and much aware of how much it matters to participate from zero. Further, it avoids the deadly expense of hiring human brains under the EF umbrella, not friendly to OSS for potential new partners and current community.

[kwsutter]

We can't change this. This was specifically called out with our preliminary discussions with the EF team. If you would rather change the order and indicate "The Working Group members and Eclipse Foundation...", we could do that. But, we can't remove the EF.

[jclingan]

We can't change this. This was specifically called out with our preliminary discussions with the EF team. If you would rather change the order and indicate "The Working Group members and Eclipse Foundation...", we could do that. But, we can't remove the EF.

The primary intent behind this is to deal with potential bad actors (a fallback or if they recognize issue before we do, for example) or perhaps to occasionally ask to publish something under a MP social media account. We can inform them of our marketing process (create github issue to review, etc) and I am sure they would oblige. Any direct EF marketing efforts should not come out of the MP marketing budget, which would be managed by the MicroProfile community, unless it was agreed upon by the MP marketing team.

[aeiras]

Thank you beautiful MicroProfilers @kwsutter and @jclingan for the quick follow up.
+1 on this proposal making it clear that Personal budget will be $0.

Now, does it make sense to keep or even list the EF team as a separate body that is different from the MP Contributors? My point is that this proposal keeps what currently is the working process on how MP branding is handled and as such there ought to be no difference if/when an EF employee chooses to help MP or any of the Foundation's 350 projects.

To leave it as wrongly assumes that the MP project might be ok to pay for EF people's time (fair if expected to spend time in the project), which IS NOT THE CASE. Why confuse it via that wording is what i am wondering when I submitted my PR? :)

The timing is pretty great, as I was able to join the very last MP Marketing call this very week. Recording HERE. nicely stated on the call that there shouldn't/must not be a contributor's difference treatment should anyone from EF choose to help here and there on MP.

Labels are usually problematic in the long term.

[kwsutter]

@aeiras I can understand your view, but at the end of the day, the various TMs are owned by the EF. So, they need the ability to monitor and manage the social media produced by MP or any other Eclipse-based project. They don't want to do the day-to-day management -- that's up to our team. But, they want to reserve the right to assist if or when needed.

Again, if you wish to change the order of the parties to show that MP has priority over EF, I think that would be acceptable. But, we can't remove EF altogether.

[aeiras]

Under the proposal if there are branding issues discovered by EF, they can submit a git issue as they would for any other of its +350 projects.

Again, there is no need for EF to hace access to its 350+ media projects bc if that’s their goal, how are they to handle scalability with $0 revenue dedicated to hiring such people to do that job?

This proposal puts $0 usd for EF hiring employees.