 
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: 18 of 23 voting members |
| Since 75% of the EC's 23 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):
Freescale and SAP are both currently non-voting members as a result of non-attendance at previous meetings. (See the public attendance record for details.) There was no change in voting status as a result of this meeting, but Eclipse, Hazelcast, IBM, London Java Community, and Geir Magnusson will lose their voting privileges if they miss the next meeting.
See the JIRA.
Heather presented the usual EC stats. We noted that the Transfer Ballot for JSR 329 is the first one we have held. We discussed the poor turnout for the vote on JSR 342 but could not identify a common cause. We expressed the hope that when JCP 2.10 modifies Maintenance Review Ballots from one week to two that this might help in similar situations.
We discussed the suggested locations for upcoming face-to-face meetings (see the PMO presentation for details). Chris Aniszczyk expressed confidence that Twitter would be able to host the October meeting in San Francisco, but said he needed another week to confirm this. Patrick agreed to follow up with him by email.
David Britto reported that he is still checking on whether TOTVS can host a meeting in Rio de Janeiro. We agreed that if we do meet in Rio we should do so in January rather than February in order to avoid the overcrowding and increased prices associated with Carnival. Bruno reported that there is a large Java conference in Sao Paulo in January, and suggested that we plan our f2f meeting so that members who wished to could also attend that event. He promised to provide details by email.
Several members expressed a preference that if we meet in Brazil in January they would prefer not to have to travel too far for the June/July meeting. (What constitutes a long trip, of course, depends on where people are located. We agreed to conduct a Doodle poll so people could express their preferences (for Germany or Ottawa).
Patrick provided brief updates on JSRs 364 and JSR 358. See the PMO presentation for details.
We continued the discussion of possible post-JCP.next initiatives that we began during the London face-to-face meeting. We noted that Greg Luck seems not to have followed up yet on forming a Working Group to address the sun.misc.unsafe issues that we discussed during that meeting and agreed that this would still be a useful initiative (though not one officially "sponsored" by the EC).
Gil Tene suggested that we pay more attention to, and participate in, OpenJDK. He noted that many OpenJDK projects do not clearly specify whether they are focusing on platform-specific or "standard" matters. Mike DeNicola suggested that if Java ME does indeed "merge" into Java SE then this would leave only the Java EE platform where the JCP itself has a significant influence. Werner Keil noted that the Device I/O API, while shipped with Java ME 8 Embedded, was developed under OpenJDK.
Gil noted that OpenJDK is where "large" JSRs are developed with good community input, and noted that even before OpenJDK there was still a significant lack of JCP input into Java SE. Patrick noted that in JSR 358 we are planning to require that all RIs are developed collaboratively, and pointed out that we have often argued that developing first in an open-source project and standardizing later can be a very effective development model. Otavio Santana suggested that now that the Java 9 schedule has been published and resources allocated it would be appropriate to initiate the JSR, yet this hasn't happened.
Patrick suggested that Gil lead a discussion on OpenJDK at a subsequent EC meeting. Gil agreed to do so. (An AI has been opened to track this.)
Susanne Cech suggested that we should explore previous suggestions that the EC play an architectural role, reviewing and overseeing the whole of the Java ecosystem, looking for dependencies between JSRs and possibly encouraging the development of new JSRs. Patrick agreed to add this to our list of possible initiatives.
Other business
Leonardo Lima asked for more Java ME input from Oracle. Calinel promised to come back to the EC within a few months with a more JCP-related presentation. Patrick noted that at the London meeting we had agreed that we would request IoT presentations from Oracle, Eclipse, and MicroDoc. (An AI has been opened to track this.)
