 
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: 12 (11 voting members) |
Total attendance: 13 (13 voting members) |
| Since 75% of the ME EC's 12 voting members were present,
that EC was quorate for this meeting Since 75% of the SE/EE EC's 16 voting members were present, that EC was quorate for this meeting |
|
Since neither Samsung nor SK Telecom were present at this meeting, and since they had previously missed six meetings since the Standing Rules went into effect, they became subject to the "two-thirds rule" (missing two-thirds of the meetings in a twelve-month period) and thereby forfeited their seats on the ME EC. Effective immediately after the meeting these companies are no longer members of the ME EC.
Mike DeNicola noted that the purpose of the Standing Rules attendance policies is simply to encourage participation, and to ensure that a quorum can be reached even when some members are consistently absent.
Patrick reported that Oracle will probably leave both of these ratified seats open until the 2013 election.
Patrick reported changes in EC representation. See the PMO presentation for details.
Heather Vancura presented the usual EC stats.
Patrick reported version 2.1 of the Standing Rules is now in effect. See the PMO presentation for details.
Patrick encouraged members to vote in the Final Approval Ballot for JSR 355 (the EC merge,) which begins today. He reminded members of the implementation plan for this JSR. See the PMO presentation for details.
Heather Vancura reminded EC members of the process for nominating and voting on the annual awards. See the PMO presentation for details.
Patrick and Radmir Vencek discussed the arrangements for the Prague face-to-face meeting. Patrick promised to circulate logistical information after the meeting.
Members then went into session as the JSR 358 Expert Group.
We briefly discussed difficulty of scheduling meetings at a time that is convenient for all members. Patrick apologized in advance for the likelihood that we will choose a meeting time that does not work for the Nokia members in China, pointing out that meetings in the mid- to late-morning California time are convenient for all but the Chinese members. He promised to work out a mechanism to allow the Chinese members to participate (perhaps by holding occasional extra meetings at 7:00 am California time.) See the JSR 358 summary presentation for more information on this and the other procedural matters discussed during this session.
Patrick presented a proposal for standardized terms of Use for JSR collaboration projects (see presentation.) He explained the necessity of ensuring that "casual" contributions made by non-JCP members through collaborative mechanisms such as public mailing lists and issue-trackers are covered by appropriate IP grants. Members were generally supportive of the proposal.
John Rizzo suggested that when implemented the proposal should advise Spec Leads of the need to prominently remind participants in their work that they are bound by the Terms of Use. Two ways of doing so are by a prominent notice on the project's home page and by posting periodic reminders to the public mailing list.
John Weir noted that the issue of the relationship between employer and employee should be taken into account while developing the Terms of Use. Patrick agreed to link the two issues in the Issue Tracker.
Patrick then led a discussion on the process the Expert Group should follow in order to progress from high-level proposals such as that outlined in the Terms of Use presentation. He noted that he had received no feedback to two questions on patent policy that were posed to the EC mailing list, and that no comments had been received from EC members on the 37 issues he had logged in the Issue Tracker. He said that he understood that consulting internally with corporate lawyers would take time, but argued that it in these cases members should respond that this was what they were doing, and should provide an estimate of when they expected to be able to provide an answer, rather than simply not respond at all.
Steve Wolfe and Dan Bandera noted that it is difficult to get the attention of corporate lawyers unless they are shown specific language to review and critique. Patrick responded that it is inefficient to ask lawyers to draft language for a proposal that may not be acceptable to EG members. Steve Wolfe provided the analogy of a Term Sheet (a concise outline of desired terms and conditions that lawyers can then "execute" by drafting specific language.) He suggested that the Terms of Use presentation could be considered an acceptable Term Sheet, and suggested that Patrick ask the Oracle lawyers to draft language based on it. Patrick agreed that this was a reasonable approach, but reiterated that it would be preferable to have general EG agreement on this before moving forward. He agreed to follow up on this and other unresolved questions by email. He also suggested that we treat this issue as a test-case for how we could reach agreement and move forward on other issues.
[After the meeting Patrick realized that open-ended discussions on the EC mailing list would be inefficient, and instead proposed a process whereby Doodle polls are used to ask members whether they wish to move forward with a particular proposal, to which standardized responses (yes, no, need time to consult internally, need further Expert Group discussion) can be provided. This process is now in trial.]
The meeting then adjourned.
