 
Use of JCP site is subject to the
JCP Terms of Use and the
Oracle Privacy Policy
 |
|
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
|
PMO |
|
Executive Committee |
Total attendance: 21 of 25 voting members |
| Since 75% of the EC's 25 voting members were present, the EC was quorate for this session |
The EC Standing Rules state the following penalties for non-attendance at EC meetings (note that those who participate in face-to-face meetings by phone are officially counted as absent):
There was no change in voting status as a result of this meeting, but IBM, the London Java Community, SAP, and SouJava will lose their voting privileges if they miss the next meeting.
See the Action Item tracking file.
Heather presented the usual EC Stats.
This agenda item was postponed to the next meeting due to the absence of the London Java Community and SouJava.
Patrick provided a brief update on JSR 364 (see the presentation for details). He polled EC members, asking which of them intended to provide feedback on the new membership agreements. While some members reported that they had no issues with the draft documents several members reported that they were seeking feedback from their legal departments.
Patrick then noted that a full round of EC member feedback, followed by document modifications by Oracle Legal and then another round of approvals by EC members, could easily take three months or more. He therefore suggested that we go to Public Review before the documents have been fully reviewed and approved. He asked whether members thought it would be reasonable simply to present summaries of the documents for Public Review. Several members responded that we should publish the complete documents even if they are still considered to be in draft form. We agreed to give EC members two more weeks to review the documents and then to pass on whatever feedback we have received to Oracle Legal for incorporation (if they agree to do so) into new drafts. Gil Tene suggested that when we do publish the drafts we should also publish a clear statement explaining the purpose of each, who will sign them, and under what circumstances. Patrick agreed, and noted that we already have this information documented.
We plan on starting Public Review by the time of the next EC meeting (March 10). In preparation for this we will re-start the Working Group meetings as soon as we can agree on a day and time (Patrick will send out a Doodle poll).
Patrick provided an update on JSR 358, emphasizing again that we seem to have reach a consensus on RI licensing (see the presentation for details). He noted that at the last meeting we did not discuss in detail the proposal to permit RIs to be released under any OSI-approved license rather than specifying a short-list of permitted licenses. He informed EC members that he favored a specific list. Geir Magnusson asked why we should not permit any OSI-approved license. Patrick responded that a short-list would simplify the license approval process since Oracle Legal would not need to review a large number of licenses. No members raised objections to specifying a specific list of approved licenses.
John Weir noted that we will need to define a mechanism to change the list. Patrick agreed. He said the the list should not be embedded within the JSPA, but instead should be stored in a seseparate document that the JSPA will reference and that can be modified in a light-weight manner. He suggested that we modify this document in a manner similar to the process we defined for modifying the Standing Rules, which consists of a single 30-day public review period followed by a vote. (See Appendix A of the Standing Rules).
Gil Tene asked for confirmation that we were discussing only the outbound terms rather than the terms under which contributions are made to the RI. Patrick confirmed this, noting that we had agreed a compromise whereby we would recommend, but not mandate, that all contributors should sign either the JSPA or the new Affiliate Membership Agreement. Gil responded that he didn't have a problem with recommending rather than mandating, but suggested that when EC members vote on JSRs they should take into consideration whether the Spec Lead had followed the recommendation. He suggested that Azul might well choose to vote "no" on JSRs that did not follow the recommendation. Patrick responded that the regular JSR review processes will reveal how Spec Leads are handling incoming contributions.
In this context Werner Keil asked whether the PMO had any concerns about the Spec Lead for JSR 377 acting as an individual rather than as a representative of his company. Patrick responded that the Spec Lead had explained that he wanted to ensure that the JSR would have long-term support even if the company's interests changed, and he noted that since the company is a JCP member (and also a member of the Expert Group) all necessary IP commitments had been made.
Patrick concluded that we seem to have a way forward on this JSR, and suggested that we reconvene Working Group meetings after we've agreed on a day and time (he will send out a Doodle poll).
Scott Jameson asked whether we have published the exact location of the London face-to-face meeting that will be hosted by Hazelcast. Heather promised to obtain this information from Greg Luck and to inform members of the address; she will also publish a list of recommended hotels. An Action Item has been opened to track this.
