 
Use of JCP site is subject to the
JCP Terms of Use and the
Oracle Privacy Policy
 |
|
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
|
|||||||||||
|
PMO |
|
|
|
ME EC |
SE/EE EC |
Total attendance: 7 |
Total attendance: 12 |
Since 75% of the ME EC was not present, that EC was
not quorate for this meeting. |
|
The ECs briefly reviewed the public minutes from the May 2009 meeting (there were no private minutes, since the ECs did not go into private session during that meeting). Because of the short notice and low attendance at this meeting EC, members agreed to continue reveiwing the minutes by mail and to consider them approved once agreement was reached.
Patrick presented the EC stats presentation and reminded EC members that they are expected to cast a vote during each JSR ballot. (Several members did not vote in the recent ballots.)
There were no personnel changes to report since the last meeting.
Patrick provided a brief update on JCP activities at JavaOne, and on the organization's annual awards that were presented during that week. See the PMO presentation for details.
Patrick reported that the new site was launched on 16 June and that after some initial problems it seems to be performing well. The PMO is still working on a variety of non-critical problems, so as yet there are no firm plans for the next release. Patrick asked EC members to review the site, and to be prepared to hold a more detailed discussion about the site, including suggestions for its improvement and for how we can increase member involvement, at the September EC meeting in Princeton.
Patrick reported that the transition to JCP 2.7 was complete from the PMO's perspective, but that some JSRs were being slightly delayed because Spec Leads are not aware of their new responsibilities to fully disclose license terms and to present transparency information. Scott Jameson asked what efforts the PMO had made to publicize the new requirements. Heather Vancura reported that email had been sent to all Spec Leads, two phone-conference training sessions had been held (these were recorded and will be released as podcasts), and an online tutorial was published.
Heather Vancura gave a presentation outlining the web-based voting system that the PMO proposes to use in place of the current system run by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) . She explained that the new system would save the PMO a considerable amount of money, and would provide functionality at least as good as, if not better, than that provided by PWC. Members expressed their support for this approach, and encouraged the PMO to try the system for at least one year. Heather pointed out that in addition to using the system for the annual EC elections, it could also be used for EC ballots (replacing the manual email system currently in use) and for ad-hoc polling of EC members.
Sean Sheedy presented a breif summary of the activities of the ME Working Group. For the latest status, see the online discussion forum at jcp.org.
Roberto Chinnici briefly summarized a message that he sent to the ECs requesting an "accelerated path" through the process for JSR 330 (skipping the Early Draft Review phase) on the grounds that the contents of the JSR have already been extensively reviewed in public through open-source development processes, and that the JSR needs to be incorporated into Java EE 6, which is now in its final stages.
Several EC members expressed concerns at the prospect of "suspending the rules", arguing that this would set a bad precedent. They believe that all phases of the JSR process are important, and that none should be skipped. After discussing the possibility of permitting a shortened Early Draft review period members concluded that this would not be practical since a vote would need to be taken and the meeting was not quorate. (It would take two weeks to conduct a vote by email, during which time the Early Draft Review would be almost completed.)
Members then considered whether if the JSR moved through all of the prescribed stages in the minimum possible time it would be completed in time for inclusion in Java EE 6. Patrick pointed out that the PMO usually requires two weeks' notice before materials are posted to jcp.org as a JSR advances to the next stage, in order to allow time to resolve licensing and export control issues. However, if the materials are expected to move through the process unchanged (which would be the case if the JSR, as the Spec Lead for JSR 330 has argued, is essentially complete), then these preparatory stages could be overlapped with the previous review periods. This would enable a JSR to move from one phase to the next almost immediately, and could theoretically reduce the amount of time it takes to go through the entire process (after the approval ballot) to less than three months.
Members then advised the PMO wot work with the Spec Lead and the Expert Group to "streamline" the process for JSR 330 in this manner. The PMO has agreed to do so, with the caveat that any changes to the content of the JSR materials after a review period, or issues with licensing or expert control, would necessarily add significant delays.
