 
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: 20 of 25 voting members |
| Since 75% of the EC's 25 voting members were present, the EC was quorate for this meeting |
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 Azul, Ericsson, HPE, and SAP will lose their voting privileges if they miss the next meeting.
See the JIRA.
Heather presented the usual EC stats.
Patrick reviewed the election results and congratulated those members who were re-elected.
Patrick provided a brief update on JSR 364, reporting that some progress has been made, and expressing his hope that final approval would be received soon (see the PMO presentation for details).
Patrick then provided an update on JSR 358, where he was less optimistic that progress was being made (see the PMO presentation for details).
Patrick presented a proposed meeting schedule for 2016 (see the PMO presentation for details). He asked members to review it and to let him know if the proposed date for the May face-to-face meeting (May 10-11) would not work for them. He also presented a proposed schedule for the 2016 elections, and asked members to provide feedback to the EC mailing list.
We reviewed the results of the Doodle poll that asked members to express their preference for the location of the May face-to-face meeting (Ottawa, Munich, or Berlin). After the meeting he reported to the EC that the final results showed a small preference for Germany over Canada, but that Munich and Berlin received the same number of votes. He promised to initiate another poll to choose between Munich and Berlin.
Patrick asked members for their feedback on JavaOne. Martijn Verburg said that he thought the conference went well, but noted that some attendees were disappointed in the content of the keynotes, which did not seem to offer much that is new (because this year we are between platform releases). Bruno Souza agreed with Martijn. He said he was pleased with the strong JUG and Java Champion presence, but disappointed that there was no clear vision for the future of Java. He thought that the message of "business as usual" was not articulated clearly. Susanne Cech said she was pleased that the JCP had a strong and visible presence at the conference.
Paul Manfrini said that as an exhibitor ARM did not think that they had as good a selection of visitors at their booth as they had in previous years. He also said that from ARM's perspective they would prefer more integration with the OpenWorld conference. Patrick responded that when Oracle acquired Sun the Java community expressed the opposite point of view - they were concerned that JavaOne would be overwhelmed by OpenWorld, and wanted a separate conference.
Geir Magnusson said holding the two conferences together meant a shortage of hotel rooms and high prices, thereby pricing many people out of being able to attend. He said that he missed the pre-Oracle JavaOnes when each day of the conference started with a meeting of all the JavaOne attendees before people split up into different tracks. This seems to be no longer possible since outside of Moscone there is no room large enough to accommodate all JavaOne attendees. Tony Printezis, Donald Raab, and Maulin Patel all agreed that high hotel prices make it difficult for many developers to attend the conference. Mike DeNicola said that he would prefer a separate conference.
Patrick promised to pass on this feedback to the JavaOne conference organizers, but noted that the possibility of holding JavaOne separately from OpenWorld was discussed several years ago and rejected on the grounds that co-location results in significantly reduced costs for Oracle. He suggested that the decision was unlikely to be reversed.
As promised during the October face-to-face meeting Patrick gave members the opportunity to re-visit the question of Oracle's commitment to Java in the light of what they heard at JavaOne.
Maulin Patel pointed out that Oracle's messaging was much more focused on the Cloud than on Java. Mike DeNicola said that Fujitsu is still concerned about Oracle's commitment to Java EE, which is very important to Fujitsu.
Hendrik Hoefer pointed out that Mark Reinhold had announced a significant slip in the Java 9 schedule after JavaOne, and suggested that perhaps this announcement should have been made during the conference so that it did not catch customers by surprise. Someone responded that the slip was understandable given how late in the development cycle the modularity feature was added; there was need for more feedback. Michael Berg said that Intel would take advantage of the delay by pushing for additional features to be added to the platform.
The meeting then adjourned and re-convened for the public portion of the meeting. (The audio recording of that meeting will be posted on the public meeting materials page.)
