Have you considered adding these jcp.org links?http://jcp.org/en/introduction/glossary
On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
There's actually a side story to this :-).
We did originally meet with the usual after hours pints but one of our members mischievously noted that we were on an "Executive Committee" and "Don't we therefore need to drink either Wine or Brandy?" and so the tradition started!
I guess it's our way of making sure we take the work very seriously but then not to take ourselves too seriously :-)
On 30 November 2011 18:45, Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@...>
What is the world coming to, when the London Java Community (London, for Pete's sake!) writes about "too many glasses of wine" instead of "too many pints"? What's with you, guys?
On 11/30/2011 10:29 AM, Martijn Verburg wrote:
FYI - The Effort has started at
http://java.net/projects/ljc-london-jug/pages/JCPTerms with some
terminology. Feedback is welcome!
On 13 October 2011 17:02, Alex Terrazas <terrazas.mbi@...> wrote:
Excellent idea, Martijn.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Martijn Verburg
To follow up on this, we will attempt to start a non-legalise
translation of some of the most pertinent points of JSR 348 as part of
the adopt a JSR program. This will be a non-binding wiki lead effort
that will grow organically (i.e. When ever an outsider asks "What the
heck does that mean?").
On 12 September 2011 10:34, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg@...> wrote:
Probably one for you all to discuss at the F2F. It's something that
the LJC, Patrick and a few others have been discussing recently,
providing non legalise translations of important JCP/JSR documents.
On 11 September 2011 21:31, Alex Terrazas <terrazas.mbi@...> wrote:
Sean brings up an important point that I would like to add for FUTURE
(perhaps before final draft) consideration. That point concerns legal
text and the inability of many JCP members to understand that text.
I wonder if I would be appropriate to have text written in plain
english that describes the implications of what the legal text says.
I know in the new consumer finance protection law that was recently
signed that all legal text must be explained in plain english.
So, after a particularly challenging or important paragraph, I think
we should have a paragraph that provides some examples of how a
company or organization could exploit that paragraph commercially or
otherwise. Make the text readable so that the average member could
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Sean Sheedy <sean@...> wrote:
Thanks for your well-thought reply.
One of the problems with spec leads is, to use the Java term loosely, the
function of spec lead is overloaded. The current bylaws allow the spec lead
to control how the work of EG members is licensed and thereby create a
revenue stream directly from their work. The spec lead is also the EG's
Chair, which means s/he controls the meetings. This creates a conflict of
And there lies the problem. In my opinion, many JCP members did not join
the JCP to blindly "promote the efficient evolution of the Java platform."
I believe that many individual members joined the JCP to contribute freely
to a free platform, where value is obtained not from the platform itself but
from what is enabled by it.
I came to this conclusion by looking into the past while trying to
understand why the Harmony debate evoked such a visceral response among
individual members, and found these themes:
- the JCP was changed to Apache's satisfaction and their decision to join
created an endorsement of the JCP becoming an organization with FOSS values
- there was also much hype about Java being open and alternatives not open,
- there was much promoted about ways in which Java was being used in
projects that helped humanity,
- promotion of the JCP itself encouraged individual members to come make a
- individual members are not trained to read legal documents, especially to
identify how different interpretations could profoundly contradict those
- when these contradictions have been raised, the answer was "we need these
tools to maintain the integrity of the platform for everyone's benefit".
Most members are not lawyers who can read a document and tell you that the
tools given to one company to fight fragmentation also give them control of
the platform in other ways because the bylaws do not limit their use to
fighting fragmentation. They also have not been exposed to how the current
licensing situation was forged over many years in agreements sealed by NDAs,
and exposed only in EC meetings that were then held behind closed doors, and
even then only by vague reference so as not to break those NDAs and
understandable only by others holding similar licenses. Even today, the
EC's own deliberations are closed, even this one, save for the public
minutes of official meetings.
Because they have not been exposed to the full story, I expect that there
are a lot of individual members out there who believe that that the JCP is
still supposed to be the place to contribute freely to a free platform, and
do not understand that transparency changes alone won't make this so. If I
"promote the efficient evolution of the Java platform" without voicing these
concerns, whose interests am I representing?
To address this, I believe we need to find out what the individual JCP
members feel about these points; as it drives how we, as elected members,
are to represent them.
1 703 898 0201
On Sep 11, 2011 8:19 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil@...> wrote:
I understand your motives and agree with most, especially when it comes to
giving the community or individuals (like ourselves) a fair chance and voice
in this process.
I don't remember hearing or seeing you in last Friday's call, where at least
for the scope of an EG something interesting and important was discussed. A
kind of "diversity" as I would call it, required to make an EG work. E.g.
not accepting a Spec Lead by a single company and all or the majority of EG
members being "agents" of that company. While the wording could be improved
(e.g. I believe only "organization" was used, a healthy mix of commercial
companies, NGOs and Indidivuals sounds better ;-) the idea is good and
prevents some standards being driven by just one or a limited number of
stakeholders. This should if all members equally contribute and not just
"sit" there (we also had some cases of "alibi" members in some very popular
JSRs) prevent a Spec Lead of having things their way.
With regards to JSR 348, the fact, the WG is lead by somebody other than
Patrick also brings in diversity. Not sure, if the rules and regulations
prevented more than one Spec Lead for such JSR, otherwise having at least a
second official Spec Lead for some of its follow-ups may prevent not just
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Sheedy
To: seee.ec@... ; me.ec@... ; jsr348-experts@...
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:21 AM
Subject: [JSR348 EG] One example - Consensus
I have stated this before, that I am opposed to the use of consensus as
defined in these documents. I have no objection to a true process of
consensus. However I have participated in JSRs were there were no rules of
order and the spec leads had things their way, without a vote and with
abusive results. In the process as defined, the Chair determines if there
is or is not consensus. The Chair also determines if there is or is not a
vote. Given that the current Chair has spoken as if representing Oracle at
several meetings in the past year, and is employed by Oracle, I believe that
at the present time, the conflict of interest is too great to safely employ
Second, consensus in public circles has a different meaning than the W3C's.
In those circles, consensus is an inclusive process meaning that the group
works to get everyone on board and everyone is flexible and open (it's not a
matter of convincing or having hold-outs); nobody moves forward until all
are on board or a few have chosen to suspend their objection. Votes do NOT
happen because they are exclusive by definition.
Because the word has a different public connotation I believe that the w3c
definition should not be used as it is less familiar and this group's
attendance is not limited to standards experts.
That leaves the public definition. But for consensus to work in that case,
the group needs to be inclusive, philosophically on the same page. This is
not true for the EC where the philosophical common ground is, for the
corporate members, to be exclusive: to compete!
For these reasons, I believe the EC needs to permit any member to call to
have Roberts Rules formally followed at any time they feel that informal
operation is not working. This is in fact how Roberts Rules are often used
in organizations: held in reserve until a member deems it necessary to
MSA (JSR 248/249) is the poster child for what can happen when there are no
rules. It has occurred in the EC recently when Oracle cancelled several EC
meetings without a vote and with objection from EC members.
This requirement needs to extend to EGs as well.
Roberts Rules are in use in countless public and private organizations to
promote the efficient and fair conduct of their business. The lack of rules
in the JCP has led to abuses. Therefore I believe it is imperative for any
member to be able to invoke Roberts Rules in order to promote the efficient
evolution of the Java platform by ensuring that no single member can abuse
the process for evolving the platform by leveraging a lack of formality to
1 703 898 0201
Alex Terrazas, PhD, PMP
President and Chief Scientist
Alex Terrazas, PhD, PMP
President and Chief Scientist