 
Use of JCP site is subject to the
JCP Terms of Use and the
Oracle Privacy Policy
 |
|
 JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR 355: JCP Executive Committee Merge
Original Java Specification Request (JSR)
Identification |
Request |
Contributions
Section 1. Identification Submitting Member: Oracle Name of Contact Person: Patrick Curran E-Mail Address: patrick.curran Telephone Number: +1 650 506 3875 Fax Number: +1 650 506 3875 Specification Lead: Patrick Curran, Oracle E-Mail Address: patrick.curran Telephone Number: +1 650 506 3875 Fax Number: +1 650 506 3875 Initial Expert Group Membership: The initial Expert Group membership consists of all members of the ME and the SE/EE Executive Committees. At the time of writing these are: Stefano Andreani, Aplix, ARM, AT&T, Azul Systems, CableLabs, Credit Suisse, Eclipse Foundation, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Goldman Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Werner Keil, London Java Community, Nokia, Oracle, Red Hat, Research In Motion, Samsung, SAP, Siemens, SK Telecom, SouJava, T-Mobile, TOTVS, Twitter, Vodafone. Supporting this JSR: The existing members of the ME and the SE/EE Executive Committees (see above) support this JSR. Section 2: Request
2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:This JSR proposes to make changes to the JCP's Process Document and the Executive Committee's Standing Rules with the goal of merging the two Executive Committees into one and reducing the total number of Executive Committee members from the current total of 32. The existing two-to-one ratio of ratified to elected seats will be maintained. On the merged EC neither Oracle nor any other member may hold more than one seat. Additional changes to election processes and related EC procedures (for example, the possibility of moving to a two-year rather than a three-year election cycle, or of changing the meeting quorum) and minor changes to JSR ballot processes will also be considered; of course, since there will only be a single EC after the merge, all JSRs - even those that are currently in progress - will in future be approved by the merged EC. Additional minor changes to the Process Document and Standing Rules may be included if these are legitimate "bug fixes" resulting from the recent completion of JSR 348, but otherwise no additional changes will be proposed in this JSR. (A follow-on JSR may introduce additional changes.) The Expert Group intends to complete the JSR within about six months, thereby permitting the changes to be initiated during the 2012 elections. The EG recognizes, however, that the changes may need be phased in over time. While devising the process to effect the merge and reduce the number of EC members, the Expert Group will follow these guidelines:
2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)The changes introduced by this JSR will affect all future JSRs. Existing JSRs will be affected if they have not yet completed or if they issue Maintenance Releases, since future JSR ballots will necessarily be performed by the merged Executive Committee rather than by the platform-specific EC that initially approved the JSR. 2.3 The Executive Committees would like to ensure JSR submitters think about how their proposed technology relates to all of the Java platform editions. Please provide details here for which platform editions are being targeted by this JSR, and how this JSR has considered the relationship with the other platform editions.This JSR will address all Java platform editions. 2.4 Should this JSR be voted on by both Executive Committees?Yes. 2.5 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?Changes in the Java ME market, and the increasing maturity and consolidation of the Java market generally, suggests that some rebalancing between Java ME and the other platforms, together with a modest reduction in the total number of EC members, would be appropriate. Looking forward, the expected convergence between Java ME and Java SE is likely to render the current division into two separate ECs increasingly irrelevant. Since Java is One Platform, it ought to be overseen by a single Executive Committee. 2.6 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?See above. 2.7 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:Not applicable. 2.8 Is there a proposed package name for the API Specification? (i.e., javapi.something, org.something, etc.)Not applicable. 2.9 Does the proposed specification have any dependencies on specific operating systems, CPUs, or I/O devices that you know of?Not applicable. 2.10 Are there any security issues that cannot be addressed by the current security model?Not applicable. 2.11 Are there any internationalization or localization issues?Not applicable. 2.12 Are there any existing specifications that might be rendered obsolete, deprecated, or in need of revision as a result of this work?This JSR will produce a new version of the JCP Process document and the Executive Committee Members' Guide, therefore replacing the current versions of these documents. 2.13 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.
JSR submittal: January 2012 2.14 Please describe the anticipated working model for the Expert Group working on developing this specification.The two ECs will together form the Expert Group for this JSR. The Chair of the JCP will act as Spec Lead and the PMO will provide administrative assistance as necessary. In addition to working on this JSR during regularly-scheduled EC meetings, additional teleconferences will be scheduled on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Since it is likely that only a subset of EC members will attend these additional meetings, their results will be reported back to the full Executive Committees for review and approval. In addition to teleconferences and face-to-face meetings, the Expert Group will make extensive use of email and collaborative tools such as Wikis. 2.15 Provide detailed answers to the transparency checklist, making sure to include URLs as appropriate:A java.net project (http://java.net/projects/jsr355/pages/Home) will host all communication mechanisms. The home-page of this project will contain pointers to the mailing-lists, Wiki, document archive, discussion forum, and issue tracker, and will explain how members of the public can observe and participate in the activities of the Expert Group. - Is the schedule for the JSR publicly available, current, and updated regularly? The document archive will contain a copy of the schedule, which will be updated as necessary. - Can the public read and/or write to a wiki for the JSR? We will use the Wiki as a one-way channel of communication (from the EG to the public.) The public will be able to read all our documents, and to respond with comments via the public mailing-list. - Is there a publicly accessible discussion board for the JSR that you read and respond to regularly? We will provide a discussion forum, but the experience of JSR 348 suggests that the public would prefer to use the mailing-list. - Have you spoken at conferences and events about the JSR recently? Yes - at several conferences, and at meetings with Java User Groups. - Are you using open-source processes for the development of the RI and/or the TCK? Not applicable. - What are the Terms of Use required to use the collaboration tools you have prepared to use with the Expert Group, so that prospective EG members can judge whether they are compatible with the JSPA? The standard java.net Terms of Use will apply. - Does the Community tab for my JSR have links to and information about all public communication mechanisms and sites for the development of my JSR? It will point to the project home-page for the JSR, which will in turn provide all necessary information about the communication mechanisms used by the Expert Group. 2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both. Include version information for the profile or platform in your answer.Not applicable. 2.17 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).Not applicable. 2.18 Please provide a description of the business terms for the Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.Not applicable. 2.19 Please describe the communications channel you have established for the public to observe Expert Group deliberations, provide feedback, and view archives of all Expert Group communications.The Expert Group will conduct business on the experts@jsr355.java.net mailing list. All mail sent to this alias will be copied to the observers@jsr355.java.net to which members of the public may subscribe for reading and writing. See http://java.net/projects/jsr355/lists for more details. 2.20 What is the URL of the Issue Tracker that the public can read, and how does the public log issues in the Issue Tracker?A JIRA issue tracker (http://java.net/jira/browse/JSR355) will be used. The public will be able to log issues directly into the issue-tracker 2.21 Please provide the location of the publicly accessible document archive you have created for the Expert Group.All documents will be archived at http://java.net/projects/jsr355/pages/DocumentIndex. The observers alias will be archived at http://java.net/projects/jsr355/lists/observers/archive. Section 3: Contributions
3.1 Please list any existing documents, specifications, or implementations that describe the technology. Please include links to the documents if they are publicly available.
3.2 Explanation of how these items might be used as a starting point for the work.The documents referenced above describe the current structure and operation of the JCP and form the basis for evolving the rules of the community. |
