JCP.next master list
JCP.next Master List of proposed changes
Updated Feb 9 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
- Decide whether the changes introduced in JCP.next should be applied to
other JSRs that are "in flight."
- We probably can't require that an existing JSR be ruled by new
version of the JSPA.
- We should require that the new version of the Process Document
applies to all existing JSRs when they have a "state change" (including
a Maintenance Review.)
We decided to wait and see how radical the changes are before we decide whether
or not to require that in-process JSRs adopt them.
- Eliminate confidentiality requirements from the JSPA.
- we need more discussion
- We have language (from the JSR 306 JSPA draft)
- We said we'd target this for JSR1, but as a JSPA change it should wait
- We didn't reach consensus on this. John Rizzo argued that confidentiality
should still be an option, but that we should do a better job of explaining
that it should be
used only in exceptional circumstances. (This may not be easy to do in
a legal document.)
- Don noted that whatever decision we make Expert Groups should not
discuss product features, pricing, etc.
- Needs more discussion.
- All business must be carried out on public mailing lists.
- Issues must be tracked through a publicly viewable issue tracking mechanism.
- These two are non-controversiol. We don't have draft language. Should
target for JSR1.
- 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
response - this should be tightened up.
- Non-controversial - target for JSR1.
- Should ensure sufficient IP grants, but not impose requirements more
strict than the JSPA
- See Wayne Carr document for explanation.
- JSR2? (more effort - legal work required)
- Is this a Process Doc or a JSPA change?
- Do in two stages?
- Non-controversial, but we have no draft language yet.
- Add semi-annual EC meetings that all JCP members are free to attend and
where the agenda chosen from topics suggested by the membership.
- Create public alias (with archive) for members to provide feedback to the
- Non-controversial, JSR1, Process Doc change.
- Need draft text.
- Need some language to address Undocumented Practices.
- Permit and encourage publication of TCK test results so users can see who's
compatible and who's not.
- Secrecy rules may be specific to Oracle licenses; JSPA change could
explicitly mandate openness.
- TODO: Oracle should own this - draft some language
- TCK documentation (including Compatibility Requirements) must be publicly
- Can we/should we publish the tests too?
- TODO: Oracle to review this
- 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?
- Need creative legal suggestions
- Self-employed individuals should be treated differently?
- We need suggestions. Brainstorm this.
- Modify cost section of JSPA to permit PMO to charge a nominal fee for individuals
(if this should prove necessary)
- See Wayne Carr document for justification.
- Simple change. Since JSPA, target for JSR2.
- Non-assertion patent covenant.
- We have draft language. Patrick to circulate this and ask people
to get their lawyers to comment
- IP grants flow directly to implementers, not via Spec Lead
- Justification? TODO: Patrick to circulate this.
- Clarify what we mean by FRAND.
- We agreed we should probably strike this since we're unlikely to reach
- Does other EC members agree?
- Require that when the license terms associated with a JSR are significantly
changed from the previous release, this is explicitly called out.
- Require change log for licensing changes.
- Process doc change, JSR1, non-controversial.
- TODO: John Rizzo to draft language.
- Clarify the requirement to disclose licenses, particularly if different
licenses are available for various types of implementation or different fields
- Can we require every variant to be disclosed? No.
- Require that offered licenses must be available to anyone who is willing
- TODO: John Rizzo to check whether existing language guarantees this,
and to suggest Process Doc changes if not.
- Define a mandatory standard Spec License.
- TODO: Patrick to circulate the "recommended" Spec License
- Recommend (but do not require) standard RI and TCK licenses.
- Provide separate templates for Independent (open source) and commercial
- TODO: Patrick: circulate examples for discussion
- Enable implementations before specs are finalized,
to gain real-world experience.
- Must maintain compatibility.
- See Transplant JSR proposals from JSR 306
- Look for feedback from WG members.
- What mechanism to use to gather feedback?
- If something is critical for one or two companies but not high priority
for others - may not be "on the list"
- Time-outs for inactive JSRs.
- See JSR Renewal Ballot suggestion from JSR 306
- We have language
- Better procedures to remove
or replace non-responsive spec leads and to deal with bankrupt or defunct
- Have no language.
- Process doc only, or should we modify JSPA to permit withdrawal of
- TODO: Michael to review and suggest changes.
- Make the JSPA less intimidating by refactoring into three layers
in public forums.
- A simple membership agreement for those who want voting privileges
and the right to serve on Expert Groups.
- The complexities of IP and compatibility obligations are required only
for Spec Leads – factor these out into a separate agreement.
- No barriers to participation in Expert Groups.
- Requests to join EGs and the Spec Lead's responses must be made in
- Define a process for removing EG members who do not participate.
- Clarify requirements for RI and TCK to be posted within x weeks of Final
- How to "undo" Final Release if materials not posted?
- Penalties for EC members who do not attend meetings or do not vote
- Begin phase-out of IEPA
- See Wayne Carr document for suggestions.
- 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
- Prohibit major Patform changes in Maintenance releases (see MR2 of JSR
- Review Appendix A of Process Document (Eduardo has some concerns?)
Branding and compatibility
- Emphasize the value of compatibility & the brand and the risks of using
- Relax all-or-nothing compatibility reqiurements?
- TODO: 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?
- Clarification of the JSPA as discussed within the EC.
- Enable and encourage the establishment of more formal relationships with
other standards bodies.
- Some disagreement as to whether Confidentiality is an
obstacle to liaison with other organizations. Need more discussion.
- Transplant JSRs (enable incorporation and standardization of work
developed outside the JCP.
- Hybrid JSRs (allowing non-Java implementations of a JSR's specification)
Address the issue of where litigation should be located. California, or elsewhere?
California is an obstacle to Brazilian state involvement. According to Java
Champion Douglas Jenssen this is also an issue within the US. He has said on
the Java Champions alias:
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.