 
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 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):
Since all members attended this meeting there was no change in voting privileges. Ericsson and SAP will regain their voting rights if they attend the next meeting.
As we agreed in Brazil, we briefly discussed the very low attendance at that meeting. Patrick asked each of the members who were absent from that meeting what the reason was. The reasons varied, from difficulties in getting a visa to last-minute business conflicts, but nobody reported that they did not attend because the meeting was held in Brazil.
See the JIRA.
Heather VanCura presented the usual EC stats (see the presentation for details). We discussed JSR 377, which passed its JSR Renewal Ballot but with a significant number of no votes and abstentions. Patrick asked whether the London Java Community would be willing to talk to Andres about the concerns EC members had addressed. James Gough agreed to do so by first drawing up a list of concerns, then circulating it to the EC for comments before talking to Andres.
Heather VanCura walked EC members through the pages on jcp.org that will be modified to deal with the new membership classes introduced with JSR 364, and discussed the implementation plan. (See the PMO presentation for details.)
Patrick pointed out that just as we will be tracking individual members and transitioning most of them to the new Associate Member class we will also need to transition the majority of Java User Group members to the new Partner Member class. Heather agreed that the PMO would do so.
Don Deutsch asked whether we will still be able to accept manual signatures after we implement electronic signing of agreements. Heather responded that we will.
We agreed to hold one more Working Group meeting to talk about how we will promote the new membership changes, and to draw up a check-list to verify that we correctly and fully implement the new process requirements.
For the benefit of EC members who were not present in Rio we reviewed the JSR 358 discussion we held at that meeting. Mike DeNicola proposed a motion that JSR 358 be withdrawn. Mike Milinkovich seconded the motion.
Mike DeNicola argued that leaving the JSR open would be misleading since the JSR explicitly states that its intent is to change the JSPA and we will now not be able to do so. He suggested that instead we open a new JSR to deal with changes that will not require modifying the JSPA or changing licensing terms.
Patrick clarified that we have three options:
While discussing the Dormant state we agreed to consider for jcp.next.5 introducing a requirement to hold a JSR Renewal Ballot when a Spec Lead wishes to "revive" a previously-Dormant JSR.
After some discussion of the relative merits of withdrawing versus dormancy we proceeded to a vote on the original motion. Members voted unanimously to withdraw the JSR. Patrick therefore agreed to work with the PMO to do so. He also agreed to draft a proposal for the jcp.next.5 JSR.
We agreed that we would need to discuss how to publicize the decision to close JSR 358 at a future meeting.
