 
Use of JCP site is subject to the
JCP Terms of Use and the
Oracle Privacy Policy
 |
|
Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
|
PMO |
|
Executive Committee |
Total attendance: 23 of 25 voting members |
| Since 75% of the EC's 25 voting members were present, the EC was quorate for this session |
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 was no change in voting status as a result of this meeting but Freescale, Hazelcast, SAP, and Twitter will lose their voting rights if they miss the next meeting.
See the JIRA.
Heather presented the usual EC Stats. Patrick commented on the "no" vote in the JSR 350 renewal ballot (the first we have seen since we introduced this process). He suggested (without addressing the merits of this particular vote) that it is healthy that the EC occasionally votes "no" in ballots, since this indicates that the process is working. Scott Jameson agreed, noting that this proves that members take their duties seriously, and think about the issues they are voting on.
Patrick provided an update on the JCP.org login changes. See the PMO Presentation for details.
Patrick reported on his recent trip to China and Taiwan (see the PMO Presentation for details). He informed the EC that the GreenTea Java User Group in Shanghai was founded and sponsored by, and its leaders are employees of, Alibaba. He explained that he has had discussions with Alibaba about the possibility of them joining the JCP, saying that this would be a very positive step given their leading role in China and indeed globally. (If they join, other Chinese companies might follow their lead.) He pointed out that the Process Document states that if one company has a controlling interest in another they will collectively have only one rather than two votes in JCP elections. He asked members whether - if Alibaba should join the JCP - we should apply a similar rule here, so that Alibaba and the GreenTea JUG would share a vote.
Mike DeNicola asked whether membership in the JUG is restricted to Alibaba employees. Patrick responded that it is not - on the contrary, Alibaba's motivation in forming and sponsoring the JUG is to grow the pool non-employee Java programmers so that they might in the future be able to recruit some of them. Mike responded that under these circumstances he did not believe that we should restrict the two entities to a single vote.
Mark Little said that we should encourage rather than discourage this kind of corporate sponsorship of Java User Groups, and suggested that if we were to look closely at other JUGs we might find similar arrangements. This is a good thing. Other members agreed.
Bruno Souza pointed out that the more members the JUG has the less control Alibaba will have. He noted that SouJava was initially founded by his own employer but that it has since taken on its own identity. We should encourage a diverse leadership in the JUG.
Patrick summarized: we agree that this kind of sponsorship is not a problem - indeed, should be encouraged - and we would not restrict a company and a JUG it sponsors to a single vote.
Heather provided a brief update on JSR 364 (see the presentation for details). She reported that the Public Review Ballot had just closed and was successful. She said she hoped to publish the Proposed Final Draft very soon. Patrick responded that he would like to have feedback on the revised Process Document from one more reviewer before we post; Martijn Verburg volunteered to review the document.
Patrick provided an update on JSR 358 (see the presentation for details). He reported that he expects to take the IP-flow document to Oracle Legal within a couple of weeks.
The meeting then adjourned in order to re-assemble for the public EC meeting.
