Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
for 26 June2012

version 0.4: July 10, 2012

Date

June 26, 2012

Location

Teleconference

Agenda

Part 1: Private EC meeting (7:00 am)

Part 2: Public EC meeting (8:00 am)

Attendance

PMO
  • Patrick Curran, Heather Vancura
ME EC
SE/EE EC
  • Stefano Andreani – present
  • Aplix – not present
  • ARM – Paul Manfrini – present
  • AT&T – not present (NON-VOTING MEMBER)
  • CableLabs – Jon Courtney – present
  • Deutsche Telekom Radomír Věncek – present
  • IBM – Mark Rogalski – present
  • Werner Keil – present
  • Nokia – not present
  • Oracle – Roger Riggs– present
  • RIM – not present
  • Samsung – not present (NON-VOTING MEMBER)
  • Siemens Marquart Franz, Christoph Kuhmuench – present
  • SK Telecom – not present (NON-VOTING MEMBER)
  • TOTVS David Britto present
  • Vodafone – not present(EXCUSED)

Total attendance: 9

  • Azul Systems – Gil Tene – present
  • Credit Suisse – Victor Grazi, Susanne Cech Previtali – present
  • Eclipse – Wayne Beaton – present
  • Ericsson – Magnus Lönnroth – present
  • Fujitsu – Mike DeNicola – present
  • Goldman Sachs – John Weir – present
  • Google Josh Bloch – present
  • HP – Scott Jameson – present
  • IBM – Steve Wolfe – present
  • Intel – Anil Kumar – present
  • London Java Community – Martijn Verburg – present
  • Oracle – Anish Karmarkar – present
  • RedHat – David Bosschaert, Scott Stark – present
  • SAP – Steve Winkler – present
  • SouJava – Bruno Souza – present
  • Twitter – Chris Aniszczyk – present (NON-VOTING MEMBER)

Total attendance: 16

Since 75% of the ME EC's 13 voting members were not present, that EC was not quorate for this meeting
Since 75% of the SE/EE EC's 15 voting members were present, that EC was quorate for this meeting

Minutes of Private EC meeting

Personnel changes

Patrick reported personnel changes at TOTVS (see the private PMO presentation for details.)

EC stats

Heather Vancura presented the usual EC stats.

Standing Rules 2.1

Patrick reported that the draft of the new version of the Standing Rules, which will implement the new policy for attendance at face-to-face meetings, is currently in review. See the private PMO presentation for details.

JSR 355 update

Patrick reported the results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR 355 and outlined the schedule for the remaining phases of this JSR. See the private PMO presentation for details.

Next steps on JSR 358

Patrick reported that the JSR Review Ballot for JSR 358 begins today and encouraged members to vote. He promised to poll members to choose a date and time for the first Expert Group meeting during the week of July 9 (after the ballot closes.)

Java SE8 compliance with JCP 2.8

Mark Reinhold gave a presentation on new Terms of Use for OpenJDK which were intended to facilitate compliance with the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8 (see presentation.)

Josh Bloch asked whether there was any intention to modify the document to comply with the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice on software copyrights. Mark responded that he would pass on this suggestion to Oracle's lawyers.

Scott Jameson expressed serious concern about the need to sign an additional agreement (the Oracle Contributor Agreement or OCA) in addition to the JSPA. He asked why the JSPA wasn't sufficient - why was the OCA required? Mark responded that this was the best that they could do to ensure that IP flows as needed. He promised to relay HP's concern to the legal team. Scott Stark reiterated the question: why isn't the JSPA sufficient? What changes would need to be made to the JSPA to make it suitable for their purposes? Mark responded that this would turn the JSPA into the OCA. Martijn Verburg suggested that this would be a suitable topic for discussion in the context of JSR 358.

Mike DeNicola asked whether Oracle Legal is suggesting that the OCA should replace the JSPA. Mark responded "no."

Magnus Lönnroth agreed that two documents should not be necessary and suggested that the JSPA be modified as necessary. Mark responded that they had done their best to satisfy the transparency requirements of JCP 2.8. He pointed out that changing the JSPA is a major task and would take a considerable amount of time to achieve. In the meantime, this solution was necessary in order to make the work of OpenJDK developers more efficient. Josh Bloch responded that adding extra legal documents was not likely to make things more efficient.

Scott Stark requested that Oracle Legal be asked to explain why they believe the JSPA is not sufficient. Mark responded that he would ask Legal for a written statement. (After the meeting Scott also asked by email for an explanation of infrastructure burden related to not using the OCA.)

Adjourn

The meeting then adjourned, to reconvene in public.

Minutes of Public EC meeting

NOTE: a recording of this meeting is available and may be found here.

JSR 355

Patrick presented a brief status of JSR 355. See the public PMO presentation for details.

JSR 358

Patrick reviewed the items under consideration for JSR 358. See the presentation for details.

Annual awards and JavaOne

Patrick reported that nominations for the JCP's annual awards are now open and encouraged people to submit nominations. He also reported on the JCP's plans for JavaOne. See the public PMO presentation for details.

Discussion and Q&A

Martjn Verburg (London Java Community) reported that the java.net infrastructure causes problems for Search Engine Optimization and that it is often difficult to search for material on the site. Patrick promised to report this to the java.net manager.

Richard Warburton (London Java Community) commented that individuals find it difficult to have their employers sign both the JSPA's Exhibit B and the OCA, and wondered whether the two documents could be merged. Patrick responded that this had been discussed, but that it was unlikely. However, he also said that in the context of JSR 355 we are considering whether we could drop Exhibit B altogether.

Scott Stark (RedHat) suggested in response to the Compatibility slide in the JCP.next.3 presentation that compatibility requirements should be separated from the licensing of the technology, and instead associated with a separate branding and compatibility program.

Richard Warburton asked whether it might make sense to split the task-list for JSR 358 into two, in order to allow some changes to be delivered sooner. Patrick and Scott Jameson (HP) responded that this was unlikely, since we had already tried to do that with JSR 348.

Adjourn