CRANSTON, LLC
PORT ORANGE, FLORIDA

We're sorry, the page you requested cannot be found. Below are some links that may be useful. . This process includes analyzing selected code contributions to try to ascertain the provenance of the code, and license compatibility with the EPL. Contributions that contain code licensed under licenses not compatible with the EPL are intended to be screened out through this approval process and thus not added to an Eclipse project. The end result is a level of confidence that Eclipse open source projects release technology that can be safely distributed in commercial products. The Eclipse community has a well earned reputation for providing quality software in a reliable and predictable fashion. This is due to the commitment of the committers and organizations contributing to the open source projects. The Eclipse Foundation also provides services and support for the projects to help them achieve these goals. The Foundation staff help implement the The Eclipse community organizes an annual release train that provides a coordinated release of those Eclipse projects which wish to participate. The release train makes it easier for downstream consumers to adopt new releases of the projects because 1) all the projects are available on the same schedule, so you don't have to wait for independent project schedules, and 2) a level of integration testing occurs before the final release to help identify cross project issues. A unique aspect of the Eclipse community and the role of the Eclipse Foundation is the active marketing and promotion of Eclipse projects and wider Eclipse ecosystem. A healthy vibrant ecosystem that extends beyond the Eclipse open source community to include things like commercial products based on Eclipse, other open source projects using Eclipse, training and services providers, magazines and online portals, books, etc, are all key to the success of the Eclipse community. A letter-writing campaign that appears to have been organized by a shadowy organization with ties to the Koch Brothers inundated the Federal Communications Commission with missives opposed to net neutrality (NN), an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation reveals. Over the past several months, the Federal Communications Commission has been working towards a new set of rules around net neutrality, and a large part of that process has been accepting comments from the public. In September, we reported on our analysis of the comments from the first comment period of this rulemaking, and we’d now like to take a look at the comments from the second, which the FCC released in bulk in October. We again used natural language processing techniques to examine the approximately 1.6 million comments we successfully extracted from this batch of comments, helping to expose important topics discussed in the comments, and to group similar comments together. In large part because of this campaign, the percentage of comments submitted that we believe to have been form letter submissions was significantly higher for this round than the last one, at 88%. Non-form-letter submissions had a similar sentiment distribution as comments in the first round, at less than 1% opposed to net neutrality. In general, many more comments were difficult to classify in this round than in the first round. Some of the new campaigns on the anti-net neutrality side appear to have been crafted to use similar language to the successful pro-neutrality campaigns of the first round, while supporting opposite conclusions, and many non-form-letter comments used talking points from both camps, making their ultimate intents unclear. As with the last round, the corpus also included submissions on behalf of telecommunications firms, advocacy organizations, etc., which were written using formal legal language that set them apart from the bulk of the comments. Again, these were a tiny fraction of a percent of overall comments. Combined with the first round comments, we characterize 41% of the total comments submitted as being anti-net neutrality (with the balance being a mix of pro-NN and comments with no clear opinion), and we estimate that 79% of submissions came as part of form letter campaigns. Our identification of form letters followed the same approach as last round: identify clusters with particularly low variance and peruse them to confirm shared boilerplate language. This task was much easier with the second round, however, because there was less noise within each cluster. Because the corpus as a whole contained mostly form letters, partitioning it into clean “neighborhoods” was not difficult. Also, the uniformity of the comments submitted through campaigns like American Commitment’s, TechFreedom’s and BattleForTheNet’s made clustering them together fairly straightforward. American Commitment’s clusters were very well behaved because their shared boilerplate was distinctive enough to exclude them from other groupings, hence the large blue supercluster that houses nearly all of their clusters. American Commitment’s tendency to have clusters of approximately 32,000 comments made spotting them easy, too. Perhaps just as striking as the scale of American Commitment’s efforts was the breadth; most form letter organizers drove large-scale submission of a single comment template, and while many allowed submitters to customize their comments, most submitters apparently chose not to do so. This resulted in one group of nearly identical submissions for most campaign organizers (this kind of behavior is also typical of our experience with form letters in other regulatory arenas). A few more sophisticated campaigners had more than one template, or allowed submitters to plug variant sentences into a single template, but this was generally the extent of the per-submitter variation. …and here’s a sampling of the variant comments, along with their submission counts and timelines: