 
Use of JCP site is subject to the
JCP Terms of Use and the
Oracle Privacy Policy
 |
|
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PMO |
|
|
|
Oracle |
|
|
|
ME EC |
SE/EE EC |
Total attendance: 11 |
Total attendance: 10 |
| Since 75% of the ME EC was not present, that EC was not
quorate for
this meeting Since 75% of the SE/EE EC was present, that EC was quorate for this meeting |
|
PMO |
|
|
|
ME EC |
SE/EE EC |
Total attendance: 11 |
Total attendance: 11 |
| Since 75% of the ME EC was not present, that EC was not
quorate for this meeting Since 75% of the SE/EE EC was present, that EC was quorate for this meeting |
|
Patrick reported several personnel changes (see the PMO presentation) and new members introduced themselves.
Patrick reported that Oracle is still searching for a suitable corporate nominee.
Patrick reviewed the EC stats presentation and noted that the four Java SE JSRs had been approved.
Heather Vancura presented a year-end report on the JCP's activities during 2010. Patrick noted that the individual membership numbers are inflated since the PMO does not require individual members to "re-commit" each year. It was suggested that a nominal yearly membership fee or a requirement to renew membership yearly would help to ensure that the numbers are current. Patrick responded that the PMO is committed to some such solution. In the context of membership numbers someone asked whether Apache had resigned. Patrick reported that they had not formally resigned - simply stated their intent not to renew. He noted, however, that their renewal would be automatic so they will need to take positive steps to resign.
It was noted that Oracle is the Spec Lead for the majority of Active JSRs (26 out of 46) and also that Oracle fills by far the largest number of Expert Group positions (134 out of 900.) Someone asked whether the latter figure was accurate, since it would imply that Oracle had approximately three members per Expert Group. Heather promised to double-check this figure. It was suggested that the number of observers on EG aliases would also be a useful statistic to capture. The PMO promised to look into this.
Sean Sheedy asked whether it would be useful to distinguish between Mobile and Embedded JSRs. Roger Riggs pointed out that many JSRs are suitable for both.
In response to a comment that the JSRs that are actively in Maintenance Mode are almost all led by Oracle. John Rizzo responded that Aplix have done everything they necessary to release the latest version of JSR 135 (Mobile Media API) but the release is being held up by Oracle's lawyers who object to the licensing terms. He argued that the license-terms review that the PMO carries out before posting releases is undocumented in the Process and amounts to an Oracle veto. Don Deutsch and Calinel Pasteanu expressed concerns with the Aplix license, pointing out that it does not comply with the requirement for Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms, and that there is a risk that different licenses migh have incompatible (and therefore irreconcilable) reciprocity terms.
Members agreed that this subject should be discussed in the context of the JCP.next proposals, but John Rizzo pressed for an early resolution. He argued that Aplix was responding to Oracle's unwillingness to license TCKs separately from commercial products. Don Deutsch asked whether Aplix was open to suggested changes in their proposed license. Mike DeNicola argued that if Oracle believes this license is bad for the community then he wanted to know what other licenses they might disapprove of.
Members reviewed the MIDP "letter of agreement" (on which this license was based) and Sun's comments on that license when they declined to approve it. No agreement was reached (other than to discuss this problem in the context of JCP.next) but Oracle representatives agreed to take the matter up with Oracle's legal organization.
Calinel Pasteanu provided a brief verbal update (no presentation) on Java ME. He reported that Oracle had gathered feedback on the Java ME proposals presented at the recent Bonn meeting. They circulated draft JSRs to 18 companies (including non-EC members) and had received feedback from many. He reported that they are working on revising licensing terms. They want to make sure they don't invalidate previous releases of the ME platform, and agreed that MIDP3 and MSA must guarantee continuity. He said that Oracle planned to file JSRs soon.
Sean Sheedy asked whether the feedback would be published and whether there would be public discussion. Roger Riggs promised that there would be a public discussion forum. Sean asked whether the JSR review period would be two or four weeks. Roger responded that he thought two would be sufficient.
Calinel noted that the Phase 1 proposals were just a start, and that Oracle wants to move forward on the Phase 2 porposals in parallel. He said that they haven't received much feedback on the Phase 2 proposals, and suggested that it might be useful to revive the ME Working Group to discuss these proposals.
The EC went into private session for a brief update on jcp.org. Patrick reported that the PMO is actively researching collaboration-software platforms to provide Spec Leads and Expert Groups with the tools they need to carry out their work.
Mark Reinhold provided an update on the process and schedule for Java SE. Mike Milinkovich asked what could be done to ensure that the next version of Eclipse, which ships in June, fully supports Java SE7 features. Mark responded that they are working with Eclipse.
Mark suggested that the work to modularize the platform should be done in the Java SE8 JSR. Josh asked whether a separate Expert Group might be needed. Mark suggested waiting to see how things go, and noted that those interested in Java ME could join the SE8 Expert Group.
Joe Darcy provided an update on JSR 334: Project Coin. During the discussion Josh Bloch suggested that precompiled bundles be made available for testing. Joe agreed to do so.
Joe noted that although he wasn't planning to do a demo, NetBeans has support for the new language features today. Mike Melinkovich asked about Eclipse support. Joe responded that IBM's representative on the Expert Group is an Eclipse Committer.
During the portion of the presentation that discussed the effort involved in making language changes Patrick pointed out that in addition to the work carried out by the development and QA teams four separate Compiler TCKs also need to be updated.
Alex Buckley provided an update on JSR 335: Project Lambda. A lengthy discussion followed, focusing on the use of the term "lambda expression." Sean Sheedy noted that Java is a "working man's language" and since this feature already presented a steep learning curve there was no need to increase that by using a name that for many obfuscates the purpose of the feature. He argued instead for the more programmer-friendly term "functions." Others expressed sympathy with this position.
Alex responded that whatever term was used would meet with some public disapproval. Josh Bloch asked whether the Expert Group had yet been formed, saying that he had applied for membership but hadn't yet been accepted. Jason Gartner noted that there is s a year's worth of discussion on the OpenJDK mailing list. Josh suggested that the OpenJDK project should be treated simply as a starting point for the Expert Group's work.
Werner Keil started Wednesday's meeting with a presentation on JSR 321: Trusted Computing API for Java. Since there will likely be a C++ as well as a Java implementation of this JSR Patrick noted that the JCP.next topic of Hybrid JSRs might be of interest. Patrick asked about the schedule for the completion of this JSR. Werner responded that they hoped to complete later this year.
Members discussed the 2011 meeting schedule. Patrick noted that time-zone differences make it difficult for Korean members to participate in EC meetings. Members noted that teleconferences alternate between 7:00 am on the US West Coast and 7:00 am in Korea precisely in order to accommodate the Korean members. Calinel suggested that we should try to re-engage with the Korean members and he and Patrick agreed to talk to them about hosting a meeting in Seoul. We agreed to try to reach a decision within two weeks.
Heather Vancura provided an update on inactive JSRs. Patrick noted that the JSR 306 Working Group had drafted language intended to deal with this situation (requiring a Continuation Ballot for JSRs that failed to make progress within a specified time.) Mike Milinkovich suggested that we should use the Unresponsive Spec Lead language in the existing Process Document to address this problem. After some discussion members agreed that we should start with JSRs that have not progressed beyond Expert Group Formation. The PMO was instructed to contact the Spec Leads and Expert Group members of these JSRs, and to ask them to either provide a plan for moving forward, or to withdraw the JSR. If they do not provide a suitable response the EC would then ask the PMO to publish notices on jcp.org stating that the JSRs are dormant, and seeking alternative spec leads.
We also agreed that all EC representatives of companies that had inactive JSRs would report back on them at the next EC meeting.
John Rizzo pointed out that the problems caused by the frequent lack of a quorum on the ME EC and asked what could be done about it. Patrick reported that it would be difficult to do anything without a Process Document change. He noted that this problem is on the list for discussion in JCP.next. Members suggested that Patrick remind all EC members of the need to attend EC meetings. He promised to do so.
Patrick thanked Heather Vancura for making the logistical arrangements and then the meeting adjourned.
During the afternoon a subset of the ECs met as the JCP.next Working Group. The results of this discussion were incorporated into a Master List of Proposed Changes that will be published soon.
