Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
Total attendance: 24 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.
There were no personnel changes to report.
Heather presented the usual EC stats. Patrick noted that an EC member had recently reported a problem with the jcp.org EC ballot functionality directly to Heather, who was on vacation at the time. She happened to spot the message and pass it on to the PMO, but if she had not several EC members would have been unable to vote. He reminded EC members to use the mailing-lists that are documented in each month's EC-stats presentations and also via the Contact Us link on the bottom of each page at jcp.org.
Patrick said that he had asked that the PMO to initially respond to similar requests with a reminder to the submitter that the message should have been sent to the appropriate mailing-list. The first such response to an EC member would be cc'd to the relevant mailing-list but subsequent responses would not, so that the submitter would have to re-send the message to the mailing-list. It was suggested that PMO members make use of the Reply-to email header whenever responses ought to be addressed to a mailing-list rather than to the individual.
Patrick reported that logistical information for the May f2f meeting had been circulated to the EC mailing-list. He encouraged everyone to double-check that they had RSVP'd. He asked for suggestions for the agenda. Mike Marzo agreed that John Weir would forward information on two proposed Goldman Sachs presentation to Patrick (see Action-item April 2014-01). Ben Evans agreed to send information to the EC mailing-list indicating how EC members can sign up for the joint meeting with the LJC on the Wednesday evening (see Action-item April 2014-02).
Heather reported on JCP and Adopt- activities at the recent JavaLand conference in Germany. (Heather planned and organized much of this activity but participated remotely). See the PMO presentation for details.
Heather reported on plans for a 15-year anniversary party at the Computer History Museum in June. See the PMO presentation for details.
Heather reported on the PMO's preliminary plans for JavaOne. See the PMO presentation for details.
Patrick reported that the PMO had received a JSR submission from an individual member who requested mentoring on the process of submitting and running a JSR (See the PMO presentation for details.) He suggested that we discuss the broader issues during the May f2f meeting, but asked whether the LJC would be willing to provide mentorship in the meantime. Ben Evans agreed they would do so (see Action-item April 2014-03).
Patrick briefly reviewed the events surrounding the Final Approval Ballot for JSR 48. This was a very old JSR that had been dormant for long periods of time and that had "come back to life" recently with a request for a Final Approval Ballot. Several EC members expressed concerns about whether the JSR was still relevant, and after investigation it became apparent that all of the original Expert Group members with the exception of the Spec Lead and IBM had lost interest. We also realized that due to a PMO error the proposed RI license had not been approved by Oracle Legal and that it was incompatible with the JSPA because it prohibited redistribution. At a meeting with several EC members the Spec Lead reassured them that there is still considerable community and industry interest in the JSR, and agreed to modify the RI license as necessary. EC members then agreed that the JSR must be voted down because of the license problem, but several of them expressed hope that the Spec Lead would fix this problem (and also address some technical concerns) and then resubmit for a Final Approval Reconsideration Ballot.
Mike DeNicola explained that even though the Spec Lead had said that he expected to be able to complete the necessary changes and resubmit materials for the Reconsideration Ballot within the 30 days specified in the Process Document, he thought it would be prudent for the EC to proactively extend the deadline to 90 days so that any last-minute problems would not cause the JSR to fail.
He therefore proposed the following motion:
"The Executive Committee extends the deadline for the JSR 48 Spec Lead to submit materials for the Final Approval Reconsideration Ballot from 30 days to 90 days."
Bruno Souza seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously. Patrick agreed that the PMO would inform the Spec Lead accordingly (see Action-item April 2014-04).
Heather summarized the three meetings of the Individuals Working Group that have taken place since the last EC meeting (see the presentation for details). She encouraged EC members to vote in the JSR Approval Ballot. She reported that the Working Group will continue to meet on Tuesdays. Patrick pointed out that we have a limited amount of time until the planned Early Draft Review so we need to focus on the tasks that must be accomplished to reach that goal.
Patrick reported on progress in the IP area (see the presentation for details). He once again encouraged EC members to provide feedback on the IP-Flow document but reported that he had passed this on to Oracle Legal, and that he expected to have substantive feedback from Legal in time for discussion at the May f2f meeting. He asked other EC members to also prepare for that discussion.
He then summarized the background to Jim Wright's proposed new Universal Permissive License, explaining that this is currently being reviewed by the OSI. Jim encouraged EC members to review the license with their own counsel, and to be prepared for a discussion during the May f2f meeting. (He also encouraged members to contact him directly with questions if they wished.)
Don Deutsch expressed surprise that members had no comments at this time. He asked Jim how he saw things going forward from here. The license is being reviewed by the OSI but Jim is nevertheless asking for EC input. Is the text "frozen" or can it be changed? Jim responded that because the license is so simple he doesn't expect substantive changes; he expects that most responses will be in the form of questions rather than suggestions for change.
Steve Wolfe pointed out that they haven't had much time yet to review the license. He noted that it will be important not just to discuss the content of the license, but also the context in which it is expected to be used. (For example, does Oracle expect to adopt it in place of GPL?)
No further comments being received, Patrick encouraged members to prepare for a more detailed discussion of this topic at the May f2f meeting and the meeting then adjourned.