version 0.3: January 6, 2012
November 22 , 2011
Total attendance: 11
Total attendance: 15
|Since 75% of the ME EC was not present, that EC was not
Since 75% of the SE/EE EC was present, that EC was quorate for this meeting
Patrick reported on the results of the recent election (see the PMO Presentation.)
Since two of the three new members were not present :( we postponed this item until a future meeting.
Patrick reviewed the EC stats presentation, noting that there has been a considerable amount of activity since the last meeting.
Patrick presented a report from the PMO on its membership-renewal activities. He reported that corporate members have not been billed for at least two years, and that since the last billing activity many have lost interest, merged, or become unreachable. It is likely that when this year's renewal drive is complete the total number of paying corporate members will be 60-80 as opposed to the (theoretical) 200 members who are currently registered in the database. Once this activity is completed the PMO will perform a similar review of individual members. (Since individuals are not billed, it is likely that there are many more "lapsed" members in the database.) Individual members will be asked to reconfirm their contact information, their commitment to continued membership, and their employer's information once a year.
He reported that when these activities are completed the number of members we are able to claim will be significantly reduced, but we will know that all are current and active. He also noted that during the past several months there has been a consistent and significantly increased number of new members compared with the previous couple of years.
Patrick presented a report from the PMO on its implementation of JSR 348. He reported that a considerable amount of work had been done to modify the website, the PMOs processes, and our documentation. He asked EC members to let the PMO know if they discovered anything else that needed to be changed.
Patrick reported that during discussions with Oracle's legal staff he had been informed that certain of the topics planned for discussion and implementation in the third JCP.next JSR could not be addressed because of their possible impact on ongoing litigation. He expressed the hope that since the number of items for discussion is large, it ought to be possible to move forward with this JSR starting in the new year beginning with items that can be discussed, and he promised to provide EC members with a list of these items as soon as possible.
Patrick then presented a summary of proposals for merging the ECs, which will form the basis of the second JCP.next JSR.
Members first discussed the optimal size of the merged EC. Patrick suggested that it would be relatively easy to reduce to 25, and that this number would still permit broad representation. Mike DeNicola pointed out that logistically it is difficult to find facilities to host large face-to-face meetings, and that large groups tend to make it difficult for everyone to express their opinions. He agreed that 25 was a reasonable compromise. Bruno Souza suggested that 22 would be a good number since a smaller group is easier to manage and facilitates broader discussion, while Ben Evans argued for 19.
We then proceeded to discuss how we would make the reduction. Although there was considerable support for Option 1(making all of the changes in 2012) members agreed that we should not do this unless all of the members whose terms would not otherwise expire until 2013 agreed. Don Deutsch suggested that Patrick email these members to ask whether they would be willing to voluntarily relinquish their seats in 2012. He agreed to do so. Gil Tene expressed a preference for making all of the changes at once, since otherwise this might make things more difficult for new members like Azul. Bruno Souza suggested that all elected members be permitted to serve their full terms. Mike DeNicola suggested that if the 2013 cohort did not agree to relinquish their seats in 2012 then a variation on Option 1 would be to make all the cuts in 2013. Steve Winkler suggested that one good reason for a gradual phase-in of the change is that the EC members would be able to focus on determining the best organizational structure without concern for their personal situations, removing the temptation to choose a less than ideal structure that would benefit themselves at the potential cost of the community.
John Rizzo argued that Oracle should commit to selecting ratified candidates on merit rather than out of business interests. Mike DeNicola suggested that those whose attendance at meetings was the poorest should be the first to lose their seats. Gile Tene expressed a preference for gradual change, and argued that there should be no automatic rule determining who loses their seat. Don Deutsch responded that it would not be in Oracle's interests to re-appoint non-participants since the goal was to have a smaller group with active participation. He agreed with Gil, and argued that voters should strongly consider attendance records and participation when voting in elections. Mike DeNicola pointed out that Oracle had just re-nominated SK Telecom, who have a poor attendance record.
Mike DeNicola noted that the eventual size of the EC and the strategy chosen to make the reductions were not necessarily independent. Scott Jameson reminded members that it was Oracle's choice which of the ratified members would lose their seats.
It was pointed out that since ME members tend to participate less than others, using participation as a factor in deciding which seats to eliminate might further reduce the influence and participation of those who have an interest in Java ME. Anil Kumar pointed out that the smaller the size of the merged EC the more difficult it might be to pass ME-specific JSRs. Patrick responded that there are no plans to change the JSR voting rules, so that only a simple majority, and at least five yes votes, would be required.
Since it was clear that we had not reached consensus we agreed to convert the previously-scheduled EC meeting on December 6 into a JCP.next Working Group meeting, and to continue the discussion there.
Patrick led a brief discussion on the proposed meeting schedule for 2012 (see the PMO Presentation.) No firm decisions were made, but two of the suggestions raised in New Jersey were briefly discussed without significant support. It was pointed out that holding public teleconferences during f2f meetings would be a disadvantage to those on the phone; at such meetings everyone should attend by phone. In response to the suggestion to hold a f2f meeting immediately after the elections Werner Keil noted that November is a busy conference season, and that January is probably the earliest practical time to hold a f2f after the elections.
We agreed to continue the discussion via email.