JCP.next Master List of proposed changes
Updated March 28 2011
TODO for each item
- Process Doc or JSPA change.
- Decide whether in JSR1 or JSR2.
- Do we have consensus or need more discussion?
- Do we already have draft text?
- Find volunteer to flesh out the idea
Documents to be modified
- The JSPA
- The Process Document
- The EC Members' Guide
- Currently non-normative: incorporate into, or reference from the Process
Document; make normative?
- Review Appendix A of Process Document; combine this with the (currently
non-normative) EC Members Guide.
- The Spec Lead Guide
- Non-normative: referenced from Process Document
- When will the changes in the JSPA take effect?
- We can not require that an existing JSR be ruled by new version
of the JSPA.
- Currently there is no requirement that members upgrade to the latest
- Note that section 2B uses the term "expires" but
it seems there is no way for a JSPA to expire (merely "terminate")
- we should fix this,
- The JSPA also forbids us from applying changes to JSRs that are in-progress:
- Will the new version be version 3 (containing significant legal
- Presumably yes - otherwise why make the effort to modify
so, we want people to upgrade - all members should be operating
under similar IP grants.
- Specify a lengthy transition
period (two years?) with a common deadline, allowing ample
time for review.
- All new JSRs must adopt the latest JSPA. This implies that the
Spec Lead and EG members must sign it when the JSR is submitted.
- When will the changes in the Process Document take effect?
- The JSPA currently prohibits us from applying Process Document changes
to JSRs that are in progress:
- "The Process is described on the JCP Web Site (at http:/jcp.org),
and may be revised from time to time in accordance with terms set
forth in the Process document, provided that no such revisions shall
apply to any JSR that has already been approved for development."
- Modify this language to give us the power
to apply to in-flight JSRs?
- This wouldn't require us to do so, just make it possible if
- The language should specify that at the EC's discretion
the requirements of the Process Document will apply to all JSRs
when they next make a formal state-change through the process.
Expert Group transparency
- JSPA changes (JSR2)
- Eliminate confidentiality language from the JSPA.
- We have draft language (from the JSR 306 draft)
- Process Document changes (JSR1)
(draft language required)
- All significant business must be carried out on public mailing lists.
- EG-private mailing list may be maintained for administrative matters.
- Issues must be tracked through a publicly viewable issue tracking mechanism.
- Expert Groups must respond publicly to all comments before JSRs can
move to the next stage.
- We have language requiring comments to be published, but not requiring
responses - this must be tightened up.
Executive Committee transparency
- Process Document changes (JSR1) (draft language required)
- Add semi-annual EC meetings that all JCP members are free to attend and
where the agenda chosen from topics suggested by the membership.
- Meeting schedules are currently specified in the EG Members
Guide rather than in the Process Document. Fix this by merging the two
- Create a public alias (with archive) for members to provide feedback to
- We can do this now, without any Process Doc or JSR changes.
- Nevertheless, should mandate it in the EC Processes portion
of the new docs.
- Need some language to address Undocumented Practices.
- For example, PMO/Oracle Legal review of license terms.
- Incorporate EC Members Guide recommendations into the Process Doc as normative
- Meeting schedules, quorum requirements.
- Voting procedures.
- Publish EC meeting agenda in advance.
- Specify whether agenda items are for discussion or for action.
- Permit and encourage publication of aggregate TCK test results so users
can see who's compatible and who's not.
- Oracle TCK licenses require confidentiality - JSPA change could
explicitly mandate openness.
- TODO: Oracle should own this - draft some language for the JSPA.
- Permit and encourage the discussion of individual TCK test results.
- We permit this now for OpenJDK testing - generalize this to commercial
- TCK documentation (including Compatibility Requirements) must be publicly
- Fix potential issues with JSPA Exhibit B.
- Needs legal review
- TODO: Oracle to start this
- Others should feel free to offer suggestions.
- Individual members' votes - how to avoid ballot-stuffing?
- Change this language in the Process
Doc: "All JCP Members are eligible to
vote in a ratification ballot subject to the provision that if a
Member has majority-ownership of one or more other Members, then
that group of Members will collectively have 1 vote." to
“...has majority-ownership of or is the employer of one or
more other Members...”
- It might be difficult for the PMO to enforce this in practice,
but we would have the authority to do so if necessary.
- Neither the JSPA nor the Process Doc mentions the fee structure. One or
other document should - perhaps permitting the PMO to adjust on the fly.
- Modify cost structure to permit PMO to charge a nominal fee for
individuals if this should prove necessary.
- Eg, "fees for individuals are $50 per year, but are currently waived..."
- See Wayne Carr document for justification.
- Should we increase fees for large corporations?
- Non-assertion patent covenant.
- We have draft language. Patrick to circulate this and ask people
to get their lawyers to comment
- Require that when the license terms associated with a JSR are significantly
changed from the previous release, this is explicitly called out.
- Recommendation - change:
- definition - Change Log: An area accessible
from the Spec Page that lists all changes made to the Specification
after Final Release. There are three sections: PROPOSED (changes
not yet made to the Specification), ACCEPTED (changes made), and
DEFERRED (change items to be considered in a new JSR).
- definition - Change Log: An area accessible from
the Spec Page that lists all changes made to the Specification and
Licenses after Final Release. There are four sections: PROPOSED (changes
not yet made to the Specification), ACCEPTED (changes made to the Specification),
DEFERRED (changes to be considered in a new JSR) and LICENSING
(changes to licensing terms.)
- Note also that strictly speaking the change log
does not list all changes
"after Final Release" but only those since the previous release. We should
therefore change "after Final Release" to "since the
- Clarify the requirement to disclose licenses, particularly
if different licenses are available for various types of implementation
or different fields of use and
require that offered licenses must be available to anyone
who is willing to sign.
- Recommendation - change this JSPA language:
- The Spec Lead (including Sun) for a JSR approved by the JCP shall
offer to any interested party licenses concerning the RI and TCK
-- and also the TCK separately when developed under any JSR submitted
hereafter -- on terms and conditions that are non-discriminatory,
fair and reasonable.
- The Spec Lead (including Oracle) for a JSR approved
by the JCP shall offer to any interested party licenses concerning
the RI and TCK -- and also the TCK separately when developed under
any JSR submitted hereafter -- on terms and conditions that are
non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable. RI and TCK licenses should
permit both commercial and non-commercial implementations and should
be granted to all who agree to their conditions.
- Define a mandatory
standard Spec License.
- TODO: Patrick to circulate the "recommended" Spec
License for comments.
- Recommend (but do not require) standard RI and TCK licenses.
- Provide separate templates for Independent (open source) and commercial
- TODO: Patrick to circulate examples for discussion
- Time-outs for inactive JSRs (JSR1) (we have draft language)
- See JSR Renewal Ballot suggestion from JSR 306
- Enable implementations before specs are finalized,
to gain real-world experience.
- Must maintain compatibility.
- See Transplant JSR proposals from JSR 306
- Better procedures to remove
or replace non-responsive spec leads and to deal with bankrupt or defunct
- The Dormant JSR language in section 4.1.2 of the Process Doc
apply only to completed (in-Maintenance) JSRs.
- We need similar sanctions for in-progress (but stalled) JSRs.
- Do we need to modify the JSPA to permit withdrawal
- TODO: Michael to review and suggest changes.
- Section 2.1.3 of Process doc: Uncooperative or unresponsive
Expert Group Members seems incomplete. It starts by talking about how to deal with EG
members but the proposed remedies then address the Spec Lead role. Clarify.
- Clarify the Maintenance process
- Spec Leads want the EG to persist after Final Release. The Process
Doc states that the EG must disband.
- Rplace the Expert Group with a Maintenance
- Initial membership of the MEG would be recruited
(automatically?) from the EG?
- We need to maintain the history of which members were on the EG when
it completed its work, but it should also be possible for EG to evolve.
- We really should "snapshot" the membership at
- Clean up Maintenance Release requirements. Currently
there's no absolute requirement for the Maintenance Lead to actually
deliver an updated spec, RI, and TCK. (The process simply says "the
maintenance changes will be considered final when the RI and TCK are
synchronized with the Specification.) We should require a formal Maintenance
Release just as we do a Final Release.
- Clarify requirements for RI and TCK to be posted within x weeks of
Final Release (and Maintenance Release?)
- How to "undo" if materials not posted?
- Make the JSPA less intimidating by refactoring into three layers
in public forums.
- Oracle-legal have drafted a TOU document. It's still long and
potentially intimidating, but less so than the JSPA.
- A simple membership agreement for those who want voting privileges
and the right to serve on Expert Groups.
- The IEPA is not a useful starting point since it still includes
all of the Spec Lead obligations; it's no better a starting-point
than the JSPA itself.
- The complexities of IP and compatibility obligations are required only
for Spec Leads – factor these out into a separate agreement.
by Expert Groups
- Should ensure sufficient IP grants, but not impose
requirements more strict than the JSPA
- See Wayne Carr document for explanation.
- During the submission process the Spec lead tells the PMO what collab
software will be used.
- EC approves, or requires an alternative.
- If OK - add to approved list. If not, look elsewhere
- May need to review each time, even if previously reviewed.
- TODO: Patrick to talk to Oracle Legal about this.
- This is probably JSR2 rather than JSR1 (more effort - legal work
- Is ir a Process Doc or a JSPA change?
- Non-controversial, but we have no draft language yet
- No barriers to participation in Expert Groups.
- Requests to join EGs and the Spec Lead's responses must be made in
- EG members who do not participate should be penalized.
- Lose voting privileges. Look at OASIS, W3C.
- This assumes the EG is operative by voting rather than by consensus.
- Penalties for EC members who do not attend meetings or do not vote.
- First step: lose voting privileges (which would solve the quorum problem.)
- Would need to change the definition of quorum to be "of those who
are eligible to vote."
- Suggestion from Eduardo: if you miss two meetings
in a row you lose voting privileges. Can restore by attending two
meetings in a row.
- Second step?
- Lose membership if...
- Miss x meetings in a year...
- Losing voting privileges more than x times per year...
- If people routinely miss meetings, members who attend only occasionally
- Enable and encourage the establishment of more formal relationships with other
- Incorporate the Hybrid and Transplant JSR proposals from
- Phase-out the IEPA provisions (no longer used.)
- IEPA agreements never expire - we need to deal with this.
- Encourage existing IEPA members to "resign" or to become full members.
- There aren't very many of them, so hopefully the PMO can handle
- Remove references to IEPA from JSPA.
- Remove Process Doc section 1.1.4
J2ME building blocks
- Correct typos
and errors in JSPA.
- Correct typos and errors in Process Document.
- Remove the ambiguity of the
term Spec Lead in the Process Document
(sometimes it refers to the Member and sometimes to the person representing
the Member and leading the EG.)
- See Wayne Carr document for explanation
Branding and compatibility
- Emphasize the value of compatibility & the brand and the risks of using
- Relax all-or-nothing compatibility reqiurements?
IN PROGRESS: Patrick to give the the compatibility presentation to EC...
- Publish lists of compatible implementations and report what optional features
- Publish lists of incompatible implementations.
- No JSPA or Process Doc changes required for these proposals – Oracle/PMO
commitment is sufficient?
- More formal reporting requirements for conformance claims?
- Where would the language be written? In TCK licenses?
- Too hidden?
- How to make this more public?
- What would the remedy be if someone makes a false claim?
- Oracle to drive this...
- Clarification of the JSPA as discussed within the EC.
- Members will be asked to sign the new/revised JSPA (resulting from
JSR2) - some may insist on this clarification at that point.
- Modified JSPA should not grant rights to one player that others don't
- Transplant JSRs (enable incorporation and standardization of work
developed outside the JCP.
- Need some use-cases?
- Early availability was an issue. Permitting implementations before
specs go final. IP-flow issues?
- Hybrid JSRs (allowing non-Java implementations of a JSR's specification)
- Discuss these two next week - notify EC members in advance we'll be doing
so - invite those who are interested to participate - review the actual docs/drafts
- Address the issue of where litigation should be located. California, or
- California is an obstacle to Brazilian state involvement.
to Java Champion Douglas Jenssen this is also an issue within the
US. He has said in private mail:
"The issue is a legal one, where do legal disputes between Sun/Oracle
and a member -- whether individual, sponsored by his employer, or
corporation -- get litigated. When I last met with the JCP, the answer
was it has to be in California. No public institution such as a state
university is going to agree to that, and many corporations will
not agree either. Hence I was told there are no members from public
universities, only from private ones that choose to agree."
- The JSPA says: "Any action related to this Agreement will be governed
by California law, excluding choice
of law rules, provided, however that neither party has consented
to the jurisdiction of any court located in the
other party´s country of incorporation."
- Legal collaboration between Oracle and others' lawyers.