 
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: 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 |
|
PMO |
|
|
|
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 |
|
DH Kim presented an overview of Java in Korea.
Patrick reported personnel changes (see the PMO presentation.)
Patrick reported that nominations for the Special Election had closed and that the election was in progress (see the PMO presentation for details.)
Patrick reviewed the EC stats presentation and noted that the four Java SE JSRs had been approved.
So that remote attendees would have an opportunity to participate, the JCP.next topic was addressed next.
Since the Working Group had been active during a period when the ECs were not fully staffed and before the Special Election, members noted the output of the Working Group was not set in stone. They expressed the hope that newly-elected members would support the approach taken so far, and that they would be able and willing to contribute to our work later.
While discussing the proposal that the Standing Rules include penalties for members who miss meetings it was suggested that face-to-face meetings be considered separately. Members noted that we would need to carefully consider the definition of "attending" a f2f meeting. (For example, would it be OK to attend - perhaps even partially - by phone?)
Members suggested that after the JSR was approved we should use the term "Expert Group" rather than "Working Group."
Members made suggestions for minor modifications to the proposed wording of the JSR submission (these were later incorporated.)
We agreed to add a section addressing transparency of the election process.
While discussing the issue of ensuring that Terms of Use for collaboration software platforms are compatible with the JSPA members suggested that it would be simpler if we mandated the use of a single platform (java.net would be the obvious choice) rather than permitting Expert Groups to choose their own. During this discussion several members emphasized the importance of ensuring that we have guaranteed IP rights to all contributions made to JSRs.
It was suggested that the process for revising the Standing Rules include a requirement to provide a Change Log and/or a redline version of the document.
Aguinaldo Boquimpani pointed out (for JSR2) that liaison with other standards organizations would be very desirable in the interactive TV space.
We agreed that the first meeting of the Expert Group (after JSR approval) should focus on the EG's mode of operation and on its transparency plan.
Members suggested that if we decide to operate through an Ad-hoc Group (a subset of the full EG,) this should be chaired by someone other than Oracle/the PMO. Mike DeNicola volunteered for this role.
Patrick reported that JavaOne 2011 will be held in San Francisco from October 2-6 (see the PMO presentation for details.). He reported on changes that Oracle was planning to make as a result of feedback from last year's event. Members expressed their disappointment that the event would again be held in three separate hotels, and unanimously passed the following motion:
Resolved: the JCP Executive Committee requests that starting in 2012 JavaOne be located at a single, dedicated conference facility.
Members expressed the hope that JCP sessions, despite being classified as BOFs, would be scheduled during the day rather than in the evening, and also that the sessions would not be scheduled so that they conflict with each other. They also requested that JCP events be scheduled for "The Zone" (one of the three hotels) rather than the Intercontinental Hotel (near Moscone) as was done in 2010.
Members discussed ways in which the EC could take advantage of JavaOne to meet and interact with JCP members. Suggestions included:
Patrick reported that the PMO is working with the java.net team to create a JCP Community on java.net. Each JSR would have its own Project, within which collaboration features such as Wikis, forums, email aliases, and issue trackers could be provided. He said he intended to create a project for JCP.next in order to prototype the process. (See the PMO presentation for details.)
Stefano Andreani presented a proposal for a new JSR for device detection and content adaptation. Patrick thanked Stefano for presenting his proposal well in advance of its filing, and expressed the hope that others would similarly bring their proposals for discussion to the EC.
Members provided Stefano with feedback, suggesting, for
example, that the term "device detection" was too broad. Aguinaldo
Boquimpani noted that a similar proposal was being worked
in the Technical Group responsible for Question 4 of ITU-T's SG9. That proposal
is
for a new Draft Recommendation by ITU-T called J.hadi ("Home Area Device
Integration") led by NHK from Japan. It is completely
based on Java and proposes a set of APIs to deal with device integration and
communication in a home area network and from
these kind of networks to an external network. Aguinaldo pointed out that liaison
would be beneficial, but noted that he did not know how this could be achieved
within the JCP.
Werner Keil asked whether the ME EC should also vote on this JSR (it is targeted for Java EE.) Stefano responded that he did not plan to submit the JSR for an ME vote, and pointed out that anyone could join the Expert Group.
Roger Riggs noted that the proposal would be very difficult to conformance-test, since it only defined interfaces.
Members agreed to continue the discussion, and to provide further feedback, by email.
The meeting then adjourned for the first day.
At the beginning of the second day the EC once again took up the topic of JCP.next. John Rizzo led a discussion on ways to transition to a merger of the ME and the SE/EE ECs. He suggested modifying the structure so that one EC would focus on Java EE and the other on Java SE and Java ME combined. Some members might hold two seats. Over time, the number of seats could be reduced through "natural attrition" and eventually the two ECs could be merged.
Members did not express much support for this plan, but it did stimulate a lively discussion and a consensus quickly emerged. Members agreed that Java is one platform and therefore there should be a single EC. The merger should take place around the time that Java SE8 completes, suggesting that the 2012 election would be a suitable goal. Don Deutsch suggested that we might need to add a "hook" into the first of the two JCP.next JSRs to facilitate a future merger (for example, to limit the terms of members elected in 2011.) We agreed to add a Governance section to JSR1 stating that we would "explore ways to lay the groundwork for future changes."
Jon Courtney led a discussion on the history and evolution of Java ME (see The other Java ME.) He expressed his concern that Java is losing (may already have lost) the User Interface in the mobile space to competing technologies. Discussing Java in set-top boxes, Roger Riggs asked what are the constraints (in footprint, etc.) of these platforms. (Knowing this would help in deciding how to update CDC and CLDC.) Jon responded that the typical set-top box is less powerful than most smartphones. He was not sure whether people be willing to pay for a more powerful STB that ran more interesting applications. He noted that things move slowly in this market - there are many five-year-old devices still in use. Even if there was a major revision of theOCAP specification that doubled the footprint it wouldn't necessarily be widely adopted since cable operators want to get the most out of their already-deployed devices.
Mike Milinkovich suggested that cable operators will be challenged by streaming media. Jon responded that they will still be slow to respond. Roger Riggs asked Vincent Kwom whether the situation is salvageable. Vincent responded that there was no need to distinguish between CDC/CLDC and a "TV stack." He argued that a common graphics library was needed. Jon responded that there were some specs "ready to go" in this area (eg, JSR 239.) Aguinaldo Boquimpani noted that there are similar issues with GINGA/J - they used LWUIT for their graphics library. Vincent reiterated that a new graphics library supporting animations is needed. Jon argued that HTML5 would inevitably win, and that the JCP should standardize a profile based on HTML5, specifying how it "bridges" to the Java core. He argued that a new API for graphics would be too little, too late.
Roger Riggs pointed to the Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) as an example of the future of mobile graphics, and suggested that we should be looking into a similar Javascript-based model. He noted that JSR 290 bridges web-content and Java events, but pointed out that this is now a bit dated. He also noted that LWUIT is evolving with HTML. He agreed that a Javascript-Java bridge is very important. John Rizzo pointed out that BONDI (now part of WAC) was such a bridge.
Mike Milinkovich argued that embedded Java does not have much of a future - the next generation of devices will be browser-based. He lamented that fact that Oracle is providing no vision for Java in the UI space. Roger Riggs argued that JavaFX 2.0 represented such a vision. Mike responded that this is not a standard.
Aguinaldo Boquimpani made an extensive presentation on Java standards for Digital TV in Brazil and elsewhere. (See part1 and part2 of his presentation.) Patrick Curran commented that this was the first time he'd seen a real opportunity for monetizing Java in the consumer world. Members were impressed by what was presented, but wondered what it would take to encourage similar changes elsewhere. Some members suggested that Brazil might be unique (in the need to use TV rather than broadband) to connect, but it was pointed out that Europe has strong TV standards, and a similar system might therefore be an easier sell there.
Sean Sheedy gave an impromptu presentation on some suggestions for improving
the election process (addressing our quorum issues) and improving the quality
of candidates.
These suggestions included:
Due to shortage of time, the Inactive JSRs presentation was not discussed, but simply read into the record.
Patrick thanked Dave Kim and SK Telecom for hosting, and the meeting adjourned.
