Find JSRs
Submit this Search

Ad Banner

JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR 358: A major revision of the Java Community Process

This JSR has been Withdrawn
Reason: At the January 2016 meeting of the JCP Executive Committee (EC) the EC was informed that Oracle Legal had advised that no changes should be made to the JSPA or to JSR licensing models while litigation is ongoing (see the public minutes for more details).

Consequently the EC decided at the March meeting to withdraw (close) JSR 358. Another JSR ('') will be opened to work on changes that can be implemented by modifying only the Process Document, and we hope and expect that we will be able to pick up the more substantive changes that were being considered for JSR 358 as soon as the litigation is completed.

Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

Identification | Request | Contributions

Section 1. Identification

Submitting Member: Oracle

Name of Contact Person: Patrick Curran

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 650 506 3875

Fax Number: +1 650 506 3875

Specification Lead: Patrick Curran

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 650 506 3875

Fax Number: +1 650 506 3875

Initial Expert Group Membership:

Supporting this JSR:

Stefano Andreani
Azul Systems
Credit Suisse
Deutsche Telekom
Eclipse Foundation
Goldman Sachs
Werner Keil
London Java Community
Red Hat
Research In Motion
SK Telecom

Section 2: Request

2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:

This JSR will make changes to the JSPA, the Process Document, and the Executive Committee's Standing Rules with the goals of further improving the organization's processes, correcting problems that have become apparent over recent years, and clarifying language to reduce ambiguity.

2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)

The updated version of the Process Document will apply to all new JSRs commenced after its completion and to future Maintenance Releases of existing JSRs. The Executive Committee intends to strongly encourage - though it cannot require - that it should also be adopted by in-progress JSRs. In order for a JSR to adopt the new Process Document its Spec Lead and all the members of its Expert Group must sign the new JSPA.

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, but it is likely that the Executive Committees will have been merged into one by the time this JSR is completed.

2.5 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?

JSR 348 introduced a number of relatively simple changes to the JCP's Process Document, but since that JSR was intended to be completed within six months complex changes, including any that would require modifying the JSPA, were postponed to this follow-on JSR.

JSR 99 created the current version of the JSPA in 2002 (very minor changes were introduced in 2005.) Since that time the organization has changed significantly and it is now time to revise this document to ensure that it meets our current needs. Among the topics that will be considered for inclusion in this JSR are:

  • Independent Implementations
  • Licensing and Open Source
  • Transparency
  • Compatibility policy and TCKs
  • The role of individual members
  • Patent policy
  • IP flow
  • Refactoring and cleanup

Since opportunities to modify the JSPA are rare, the Expert Group will take whatever time is necessary to thoroughly review and modify this critical document. Consequently, the schedule below should be considered as simply a rough estimate.

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 new versions of the JSPA, the JCP Process document, and the EC Standing Rules. As explained in section 2.2 the new versions of the JSPA and the Process Document will not replace the existing ones but they will deprecate them. The new version of the Standing Rules will immediately replace the existing version.

2.13 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.

JSR submittal: June 2012
Early Draft Review: November 2012
Public Draft Review: May 2013
Proposed Final Draft: September 2013
Final Approval Ballot: November 2013

2.14 Please describe the anticipated working model for the Expert Group working on developing this specification.

The ECs (and when merged by JSR 355, the combined EC) will 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 as necessary. 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 a Wiki and issue-tracker, as explained in the next section.

2.15 Provide detailed answers to the transparency checklist, making sure to include URLs as appropriate:

A project ( 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 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 mailing list. All mail sent to this alias will be copied to the to which members of the public may subscribe for reading and writing.

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 ( 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 The observers mailing list will be archived at

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.