 
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: 13 |
Total attendance: 16 |
| Since 75% of the ME EC's voting members were present,
that EC was quorate for
this meeting Since 75% of the SE/EE EC's voting members were present, that EC was quorate for this meeting |
|
PMO |
|
|
|
ME EC |
SE/EE EC |
Total attendance: 13 |
Total attendance: 16 |
| Since 75% of the ME EC's voting members were present, that
EC was quorate for this meeting Since 75% of the SE/EE EC's voting members were present, that EC was quorate for this meeting |
|
After taking the roll-call Patrick noted that three members: AT&T, Samsung, and SK Telecom, had now missed two consecutive meetings, and therefore lost their voting privileges. He asked for clarification on when voting privileges would be restored. The consensus was that voting privileges should be restored as soon as non-voting members attend their second consecutive meeting (that is, at the beginning rather than at the end of that meeting.) Since this is not what the new EC Standing Rules states, we agreed to amend them accordingly.
Patrick reviewed recent personnel changes.
Heather Vancura delivered the EC stats presentation. Patrick gave his usual reminder that EC members are expected to participate in all JSR ballots.
Heather Vancura delivered the 2011 year-end report. We agreed that future reports should include data about the extent to which Expert Groups are implementing the new transparency requirements. Ben Evans suggested that the Adopt a JSR process could be expanded to include monitoring participation in JSRs (the number of subscribers to observer aliases, number of messages posted, activity on issue trackers, etc.) Bruno Souza reported that SouJava has created some scripts to "scrape" data from jcp.org and that a similar technique could be used to gather data from java.net. (Ideally, programmatic access would be possible.) The PMO will also ask Spec Leads to provide statistics when they move a JSR to next stage
Patrick drew attention to the fact that almost all active JSRs are led by
Oracle and suggested that this was not a healthy situation - more diversity
of participation is needed. He suggested that industry consolidation and Oracle's
acquisitions were also a significant factor, as was the fact that the platform
is now more mature. Josh Bloch pointed out that much innovation happens outside
of the JCP and that this is healthy. Scott Stark suggested that the licensing
model needs fixing, and pointed out that there is still no JSR for modularity.
Gil Tene agreed that more diversity is needed. Mike DeNicola pointed out that
Expert Group participation should also be considered. (Patrick pointed out
that these data were on the next slide, but that when the cost of participation
is considered, Expert Group participation is "in the noise.") Mike
agreed that the Spec Lead role is extremely expensive. John Rizzo said that
it cost Aplix about $3 million to develop a recent JSR and that it is very
difficult to justify this level of expenditure particularly when almost the
same benefits can be achieved simply by participating in the Expert Group.
Josh Bloch agreed, noting that there is plenty of opportunity to influence
the development of the platform by simple participation. He also noted that
it can be simpler and cheaper to do work outside of the JCP. Mike DeNicola
suggested that we should hold a future discussion comparing the JCP process
with other alternatives, and exploring how we can add value to justify the
additional expense. Patrick agreed that this would be a useful topic for discussion
and asked for a volunteer to lead it.
During a discussion of the data on Expert Group participation members suggested
that the statistics should provide more data about participation by corporate
members who are not on the Executive Committee. Heather responded that if the
slide had been expanded to include members who have served on five or more EGs
an additional seven members would have been included: Apache, Symbian, VMware,
IceSoft, TMax, OW2, and Day Software.
Gil Tene suggested that trend data would be very useful. Patrick pointed out
that we have been gathering similar data for several years, and agreed that it
would be useful to present it in trend form.
John Rizzo asked whether we could supply data about actual implementations of
JSRs. Patrick responded that the JSR 348 requirement for reports on certified
implementations would provide this information. Heather pointed out that this
requirement applies only to JCP 2.8 JSRs, but suggested that the PMO could ask
others to provide the data voluntarily.
Heather Vancura gave an update on Inactive JSRs. It was agreed that all JSRs, regardless of the latest stage reached, would be targeted by the PMO if there had been no progress within the last five years. The PMO was also instructed to make one last attempt to contact the Spec Leads of JSRs that were last updated in 2009, and then search for a new Spec Lead to take over these JSRs.
Heather Vancura presented a brief PMO report, covering recent activities within the PMO. During a discussion on Spec Lead training Patrick suggested that information should be provided on how to create high-quality TCKs. Ben Evans agreed. He said that the JUG community would like to help to review TCKs, but needed guidance. Patrick agreed to follow up with the Oracle TCK engineers.
Michael Ernst & Alex Buckley gave a presentation on JSR 308: Annotations on Java Types which generated extensive discussion and many questions.
Werner Keil presented a proposal for a Social JSR that he expects to file soon.
Patrick reviewed the current state of the plans for the EC-merge
JSR.
During discussion of other changes that might be made in this JSR he noted that
the language in the Process Document and EC Standing Rules concerning the need
for a super-majority for JSRs that define new platforms or modify the Java language
is potentially ambiguous (should abstentions be counted or not?) Most members
agreed that the existing language explicitly excludes abstentions (so that the "yes" votes
must amount to two-thirds of the "yes" and "no" votes cast)
but Patrick suggested that it might be helpful to modify the Standing Rules to
make this explicit.
It was suggested that we might want to raise the minimum number of "yes" votes
for JSR approval from five (approximately one-third of the number of members
on each individual EC) to 8 for the merged EC. No agreement was reached but we
did agree to discuss this further.
Members then proceeded to discuss the main proposals outlined in the presentation.
On the proposal for a two-year as opposed to a three-year election cycle there
did not seem to be a strong consensus. This will require further discussion.
There was much discussion of whether 25 was the appropriate number of members
for the merged EC - some people suggesting that if circumstances change we might
not want to reduce the numbers at all. After considering the possibility of waiting
until 2013 to choose the number we agreed to go ahead and complete the JSR with
a target of 25, but to note that if circumstances change we could do a Maintenance
Release in mid-2013 (before the election that would reduce the numbers) to modify
this.
Werner Keil asked whether we had the option in 2012 not to fill a ratified seat,
but rather to wait until 2013. Patrick responded that we did include this provision
in JSR 348.
We discussed the possibility of changing the date of the annual elections in
order to permit new members to meet others face-to-face as soon as possible afterwards
(either at JavaOne or at an EC f2f meeting.) This did not seem practical, since
the dates for JavaOne may change from year to year, and it would not be reasonable
to expect election candidates who could not be sure they would win to commit
to travel - possibly internationally - only a month after the election.
We reviewed the proposed text of the JSR and
some minor revisions were suggested. Patrick agreed to make the suggested changes
and then circulate the revised proposal for final EC approval. He said that he
planned to file the JSR during the week ending January 20.
Bruno Souza pointed out that the version of the 2012 schedule that was initially circulated in the PMO presentation contained incorrect dates for the Sao Paulo meeting. The EC meeting will be on Wednesday and Thursday May 16-17, and will be followed by the two-day JustJava event. (The presentation has now been corrected.) Bruno invited EC members to stay on after the EC meeting to attend a panel discussion at JustJava on the morning of May 18, and possibly also to make individual presentations later during the event. He also offered to arrange meetings with Java User Groups elsewhere in Brazil if members wished to take advantage of this.
Members had an extensive discussion on whether to hold the September meeting in Ottawa or Europe (Prague being the preferred European destination.) Patrick argued for Prague, noting that we have not met in Europe since 2010, and suggesting that we ought to do some outreach in Central and Eastern Europe. After a show of hands we agreed (by 20 votes to 8) to meet in Prague. Ben Evans volunteered to coordinate with local Java User Groups to arrange for some outreach events.
We then noted that the proposed calendar stated that the February meeting would be a public teleconference. Patrick suggested that we postpone this public meeting until March or April, to allow us to make progress with the jcp.next JSRs.
The following Spec leads made brief presentations on their JSRs. EC members found the process to be helpful and informative:
Werner Keil gave a presentation on mobile privacy and identity. EC members found the subject interesting, but doubted that it fell within the scope of the JCP to try to address these issues.
Ben Evans and Bruno Souza gave updates on the Adopt a JSR program being promoted by the London Java Community and SouJava. Members expressed their appreciation for these efforts, and made suggestions for additional areas in which the program could help. (For example, in building tools and in monitoring Expert Groups' compliance with the transparency requirements.) Ben agreed to add a link to the program's home page explaining how Spec Leads could request assistance and participation. Patrick noted that the primary value of the program might be to ensure that specification drafts are more broadly reviewed, and that more comments are received.
Patrick led a discussion on the proposed JSR to modify the Process Document and the JSPA (JCP.next.3.) Members reviewed the proposed list of items to be considered for inclusion in this JSR and suggested some additional items for inclusion.
Gil Tene suggested that this JSR should also consider the issue of continued access to the TCKs. He pointed out that the TCK licenses for OpenJDK (for Java SE 6 and Java SE 7) are for one-year terms that automatically renew every year for five years. Since the licenses can be canceled at renewal time with only 30 days' notice this makes it difficult for licensees to test and ship compatible implementations on an ongoing basis. He suggested instead that a rolling renewal for four years at a time would provide more security and stability for licenses.
Rob Glidden suggested addressing issues and requirements for the JCP to establish relationships with other Standards Developing Organizations such as the ITU.
Patrick agreed to update the document as necessary, and requested members to review it during the next couple of weeks, and to provide additional feedback and suggestions.
He proposed that we wait until the next EC meeting to address this matter again, and promised to provide a draft of the JSR proposal for that meeting.
Patrick thanked Oracle for hosting, and the meeting adjourned.
