 
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: 23 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 Ericsson and Geir Magnusson will lose their voting rights if they miss the next meeting.
Patrick reported that in future AIs would be tracked via the new JIRA.
Heather presented the usual EC Stats.
Heather reported that the new single-signon mechanism for jcp.org access is planned for introduction on April 10 (see the PMO Presentation for details). She promised to send instructions to EC members explaining how to create their new accounts, and said that she would report back on this at the April EC meeting.
Ben Evans reported that the two AIs (see the PMO Presentation for details) are in progress. We agreed to review these again at the next EC meeting.
Patrick reported on recent progress on JSR 358, noting that we have held three Working Group meetings since the last EC meeting (see the presentation for details). He reviewed the IP-flow document, noting that it covered the two principal areas where we expect to make JSPA changes: a flat IP-flow and patent policy.
After some discussion members concluded that the section on IP Grants from Contributors might be easier to understand if it explained that each bullet addressed a different "IP-consumer" role: the first addresses grants to the Expert Group and others who are interested in reviewing its work, the second addresses those who develop the JSR, while the third addresses those who implement the JSR. Patrick wondered whether a fourth bullet was needed - to address those who use implementations of the JSR - or whether this would be adequately addressed by the terms under which implementations are licensed. He agreed to re-draft the document to add references to these roles. Later in the discussion we agreed that it would be preferable if the revised JSPA made no distinction between implementations derived from the RI and those that are "Independent".
We then moved on to a discussion of patent licensing. Leonardo Lima asked whether we want to eliminate the obligation to license (or not to assert) patents for JSRs where the patent-holder is not a contributor or particpant. Patrick noted that in drawing up language proposing the adoption of a non-assert patent policy we had assumed that we would retain the Essential Patent obligations with respect to all JSRs (even those where the patent-holder is not a participant.) He agreed that we should re-draft the document to make it clear that the questions of whether we wish to retain this broad obligation and whether we wish to switch from explicit patent grants to non-assert covenants are orthogonal.
Steve Wolfe reminded us that the broad patent obligation was introduced because we wanted all JCP members to have "skin in the game". Mike DeNicola reported that we believe that at least one large JCP member company dropped their membership because of this obligation. Don Deutsch reported that Oracle is sympathetic to a narrower patent obligation. We noted that the Employer Contribution Agreement is more liberal than the current JSPA in that it imposes no patent-licensing obligations for JSRs that the signatory did not participate in.
We agreed that we don't fully understand how defensive termination would work in practice if we adopt a non-assert policy. Patrick agreed to ask Oracle Legal for an explanation.
Patrick agreed to conduct Doodle polls on this question and also on the choice between explicit patent grants and a non-assert covenant. While these polls will be non-binding, they will help us to assess the feelings of EC members. We agreed to discuss the patent question further in the Working Group, and to address the topic again at next month's EC meeting.
Heather reported that the Public Review for JSR 364 has now begun and she encouraged EC members to review the materials. (See the presentation for details.)
Heather explained how we expect to roll out the new Associate Member class; existing individual members will be asked to convert to Associate membership or to provide an Employer Contribution Agreement on a monthly basis, when existing JSPAs expire. Because of this, and because of the short period of time between completing JSR 364 and the 2015 elections we decided to defer the introduction of Community Seats until the 2016 election. Members approved this change. Werner Keil noted that the PMO will need to change the public EC members' page on JCP.org to indicate that Elected members who were elected in 2014 will now serve until 2016. (In anticipation of making election changes in 2015 we had previously indicated that they would serve only a one-year term.) Heather agreed to open a JSR 364 issue and to make this change.
