version 0.1: March 11 2014
March 11, 2014
Total attendance: 25 of 25 voting members
|Since 75% of the EC's 25 voting members were present, the EC was quorate for this meeting|
The EC Standing Rules state the following penalties for non-attendance at EC meetings (note that those who participate in face-to-face meetings by phone are officially counted as absent):
There are no changes in voting status as a result of this meeting.
See the Action Item tracking file.
See the PMO presentation for details. Patrick reported that Heather had asked many EC members to provide updates for missing phone numbers and pictures for the EC-contact pages. He asked members to review their email and to respond with the requested information.
Heather reported the usual EC stats.
Heather reported on the plans for the Java SE 8 launch (see the PMO presentation for details). She added that the PMO will be involved in an Adopt-a-JSR event at JavaLand in Germany on March 25-26.
As promised at the January f2f meeting Heather presented a proposal for a modified election schedule for 2014 (see the PMO presentation for details). Members approved the schedule. In the process we realized that no EC meeting was scheduled between September and December. We agreed to add a meeting on 4 November, during the rescheduled elections.
John Weir reported that he is working with the LJC to schedule a joint EC/LJC meeting on the Wednesday evening. Patrick asked members to take this into account when making travel arrangements, and to attend this event if possible.
John promised to send all the necessary information to Heather soon. (AI March 2014-01 has been opened to track this.)
Mohamed pointed out that he will need an invitation letter in order to obtain a visa. Patrick asked Heather to work this through a London-based Oracle office. Patrick has asked other EC members who need an invitation to inform the PMO.
Patrick reported that we are making little progress on the IP front (see the PMO presentation for details). He again asked EC members for feedback on the IP-Flow document. Mike Milinkovich pointed out that because the document omits a lot of details it might be difficult for people to provide much feedback. Patrick responded that he understands this, and is simply looking for a high-level response at this time. He acknowledged that any comments or responses that EC members might give now may change later when a more detailed proposal is published.
Patrick presented a summary of the current state of the Individuals Working Group's proposals (see the presentation for details). He suggested that in order to speed up our progress we should decouple this from the IP and JSPA work and spin up a new JSR to deal with classes of membership and voting rights. He suggested that Heather Vancura should be the Spec Lead for this JSR.
Gil Tene responded that we are making good progress. He was glad that the proposal does provides a path to full membership for individuals whose employers are not themselves JCP members. He added that so long as this path exists he is not too concerned about the exact voting rights granted to Affiliate members. He noted that since we are planning to make changes to members' IP commitments this would necessarily affect the Strengthened Exhibit B, so it might be difficult to completely decouple the new JSR from JSR 358.
Patrick asked if we finish the new membership JSR this year but don't complete JSR 358 until next year, what should the Strengthened Exhibit B look like in the interim?
Gil responded that we should keep the current Exhibit B. Patrick said he wasn't sure that was a good idea.
Gil also suggested that we shouldn't force members to choose whether they are running for Elected or Community EC seats. Instead we should allow them to run for both and define rules to decide which seat they should take if they happened to be elected to both. Patrick agreed that we should put this on the list for consideration.
Werner Keil asked whether self-employed individuals who join as full members will still need to provide an existing Exhibit B and if so, whether we could change the process so that only a single copy needs to be provided. Patrick agreed that we should address this. Werner also pointed out that since Oracle has a Partner Program we might want to reconsider the use of the term Partner member.
Greg Hemstreet suggested that we should not decouple membership issues from voting rights. Patrick confirmed that the new JSR would deal with both.
Steve Harris asked whether the new membership JSR would be a "regular JSR" open to all members. Patrick responded no - it will be another JCP.next JSR, with the EC acting as the Expert Group.
Scott Stark expressed concern about the connection between the Strengthened Exhibit B and the results of the JSR 358 IP discussions. Patrick responded that we should start down the road and deal with the inter-relationships when the time came. Gil agreed that we should go ahead. He hoped that we will be closer to a decision on IP flow when we get towards the end of the new JSR. At that point can formulate the new Exhibit B bearing in mind the expected IP changes from JSR 358. Patrick agreed, noting that we could always tweak the Exhibit B later through a Maintenance Release of the membership JSR after JSR 358 goes final.
Gil suggested that the language concerning professors should not be too specific since similar conditions may apply elsewhere (within research institutes, for example) Patrick agreed that we should use more generic language and simply call out university professors as a specific example.
Members agreed to the proposal to spin off a new JSR. He and Heather will work on the details, and will submit a draft of the JSR proposal to the EC for review.