Minutes LJC JCP Committee – April 2013

LJC  JCP- Committee Meeting

Date : 23rd April 2013

Time: 18:30

Attendees:

• Ben Evans

• Martijn Verburg

• Simon Maple

• Richard Warburton

• David Illsley

• Somay Nakhal

Thanks for Jim for scheduling the meetings and JClarity for hosting

• Take minutes – Somay

• Send updates to OTN and Java magazine – Martijn.

• JSR states on trello board – Updated by Martijn.

• Previous month meeting minutes – posted by Simon.

• Voting records on wiki – was updated by Ben.

• Scheduling next Meeting – Jim volunteered.

• Reach out to Spring about CDI – Martijn to follow up.

• Landing page for Adopt a JSR – Martijn to talk to Sonya at java.net to arrange it.

• Blog about signing the OCA/JSPA – Jim to write blog.

• How to run Adopt a JSR presentation – Richard to make available on java.net

• Blog post 358 position statement – All to update document.

• “What should the JCP be doing?” Survey – Ben to take to Zurich meeting for the EC opinion.

LJC JCP Committee Minutes for March 2013

LJC JCP Committee Minutes for March 2013

Apologies for the delayed publication of these minutes. If you have any questions about what we’re doing or what goes on at these meetings, please get in touch.

In attendance:

Martijn, Richard, David, Kim, Jim

* David started a tradition of adding Puppies to minutes
* Martijn is to complete the Adopt a JSR community page and redirect the adoptajsr.java.net to the new community site. This could also include the following features:

• How do I get started button
• Coverflow of JSR status (content flow)

* Recent hack days were successful, however we need to get more feedback/follow up back to the Spec Leads, Expert Groups etc.

* Ben to pass onto the JCP EC that perhaps all of the lawyers ccurrently discussing JSR 358 could get together and write some guidance for corporate lawyers on how the JSPA and OCA work, an FAQ if you will.

* Encourage the “Adopt a JSR” programme to also focus on delivering feedback at the EC level, e.g. Try to kick-start more technical discussions on the EC.

* Ben to suggest renaming/repurposing the EDR stage to a “Tech Review” stage to encourage early tech review of JSRs.

Some changes to the LJC JCP Committee

Hi all,

The committee meets once a month in person and has several discussions on their mailing list about Java standards and how the LJC should cast its vote.

As per our informal charter, we blog about any changes in the make up of this committee. On this occassion Trisha Gee is stepping down in order to focus more on local LJC activities, Simon Maple returns & there is a new welcome addition in the form of Kim Ross!

Trisha was our tertiary rep who had been involved right from the beginning of hte committee’s existence when we first won the vote to have an EC seat. She consistently provided sharp insights into the industry that we will definitely miss.

Trish also ensured that we didn’t take things too seriously by enforcing rules such as “Red wine and chips”. The fierce battles over those last few chips were only out done by the vigorous debates on open standards.

Simon returns in his new guise as a technical evangelist for someone a little smaller than Big Blue . Kim Ross joins us with her valuable knowledge on NoSQL, gaming and other technology areas.

So thanks again Trish, welcome back Simon and welcome aboard Kim!

Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP committee)

PS: We’re always looking for more people to help us out – so if you have a passion for Java as a platform and want to help it stay relevant and vibrant going forwards then let us know!

LJC JCP meeting minutes. January 9th 2013

LJC JCP Committee Minutes

Apologies for the delayed publication of these minutes. If you have any questions about what we’re doing or what goes on at these meetings, please get in touch.
In attendance:
Ben, Richard, Somay, Martijn, Simon, Kim, Graham

The committee met over the New Year and updated the trello boards.

No voting in January

Somay to organise Feb meeting

Adopt-a-JSR article for OTN discussion.  pre-submission

Engage Oracle in discussion with regards to their plans for JavaFX and standardisation – Resolved. Open Source

Got some momentum with JavaEE – 4 people and going….

Hardware for Adopt OpenJDK – Resolved. Not proceeding

JCP.next III – quick discussion to get us up to date.

Landing page for Adopt-a-JSR – In progress –
http://community.java.net/community/adoptajsr

Looking for content input, Hashtag, graphics

Currency JSR… Ben has resigned. Concerns about how the JSR is progressing

Richard looking at scraping jcp.org for calendar

Nashorn hackday – 2nd March tentative

EE7 in public review – query about why/how it’s ahead of some component specs

JSON JSR – Richard raised some concerns about performance considerations. David to follow up with EG

CDI 2.0 – If it happens, keen to see a broader participation.

LJC Minutes for Meeting for August 2012

Long overdue minutes!

Attendees:

• Ben Evans
• Martijn Verburg
• David Illsley
• Somay Nakhal
• Trisha Gee
• Richard Warburton

Very short meeting.

Action Items:

• SN – CDI Somay is organising a day with Luigi
• BE – Draft a plain english IP policy for the LJC mailing list – A broad statement on 358

Cheers,
Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee)

The LJC’s position statement for JCP re-election

LJC Election Position Paper

• Openness and Transparency
• Advocacy and Adopt-a-JSR
• Technical gravitas

TLDR Summary: The LJC stands for active developer participation in standards, openness and transparency, promotion of F/OSS implementations and has no direct commercial interests in any proposed standard. We have initiated global programmes (Adopt a JSR, Adopt OpenJDK) directly involving developers in standards, improving them for the entire ecosystem.

History & Detailed Position

The London Java Community is a large (~2750) and rapidly growing group of developers who actively meet, discuss and work on the Java ecosystem.

During the 18 months we’ve been a JCP Executive Committee member, we’ve actively participated in reforming the JCP process itself and eroding the disconnect between developers and decision makers, through practical programmes and advocacy.

Our original goals were based on a few simple ideas:

1. Openness and Transparency are essential for any functioning standards body, and the JCP must be reformed where necessary to achieve this.
2. Better Standards are produced when ordinary end-users are fully engaged in the process of producing standards from start to finish.

As a user group, we have no direct commercial interests in the space.

Open-Source Software reduces barriers to entry for companies and reduces cost for non-commercial projects. We therefore seek to ensure that zero-cost open-source implementations of all standards are possible, and have the maximum possible patent and IP protection.

The LJC has made a major impact on the JCP, and its relations with developers and the Java community since being elected, by:

• Being vocal advocates of reform and transparency in the relevant JSRs (348, 355)
• Ensuring that commitments made by Spec Leads were followed through to completion.
• Investigating JSRs which did not meet accepted standards of openness, and helping them to address any issues.
• Founding the Adopt-a-JSR programme – to give a place for ordinary developers to get more involved in emerging standards and to start concentrating the enthusiasm and energy that exists in the community.

If re-elected we commit to:

• Finishing the JCP reform efforts started in JSR 348 (JCP.next) and JSR 355 (EC Merge) by fixing IP Flow and Licensing issues in JSR 358 (JCP.next.3).
• Taking our Adopt-a-JSR programme to the next level by seeding new Adopt-a-JSR teams in JUGs and organisations around the world.
• Continue to run and promote workshops, talks and global collaboration by developers on JSRs.
• Continuing to always stand up for the interests of developers and community – including promoting open-source implementations and projects.
• Maintain a deep bench of talent in our committee, to ensure that developers are represented with the same time commitment that a major corporation can provide.

Our Committee

The LJC operates a JCP committee. This group is made up of volunteers who have agreed to abide by confidentiality rules, meet their commitments (including time commitments) and to work towards the goals agreed by consensus. The current committee members are: Ben Evans, Martijn Verburg, Trisha Gee, Richard Warburton, James Gough, Somay Nakhal and David Illsley.

This enables the LJC to avoid problems related to key person risk – with 7 members on the team, if one person needs to reduce their level of commitment then others can pick up their workload. We have discovered that running an effective EC seat requires at least 20 hours per week – equivalent to ½ person full-time. Given the LJC’s size, we feel confident that we can continue to staff the committee at the required level to provide a real voice for developers.

Openness and Transparency

We believe strongly in openness and transparency:

• We publish the motivation behind previous voting decisions on the LJC blog in order to ensure complete transparency and open access.
• We also publish the minutes of our committee meetings on the blog.
• We are active promoters of transparency for JSRs. For example, we regularly monitor all JSRs to ensure that they are meeting their obligations in accordance with JCP 2.8 (JSR 348). This means open mailing lists, issue trackers etc.

Advocacy and Adopt-a-JSR

The LJC pioneered the Adopt-a-JSR program, encouraging developers to actively participate in specifications. Involvement includes everything from trialing beta APIs through to helping define the standard and implementing the Reference Implementation (RI). We are actively involved in the standardisation of JSR-310 (Datetime), and have run hackdays for JSR-310, JSR-335 (Lambdas) and JSR-308 (Type Annotations). These hackdays provide feedback on the usability of new features to the expert group and help prepare developers for upcoming changes to the Java language.

Adopt-a-JSR also highlights to developers the relevance of the JCP, and shows how they can impact the language and ecosystem they work with. To achieve this goal, the LJC has run talks, workshops and advocacy via social media such as Twitter and Java conferences such as JavaOne, Devoxx etc.

Technical Gravitas

As a large organisation of technologists we have expertise throughout the Java Platform, from deep dive tech to blue chip enterprise development. This gives us great insight into the technical merits of each JSR. Since we seek to represent a broad cross section of the community, our voting decisions are based not on the opinions of one person, but the consensus of a committee of peers.

In Summary

Eighteen months ago, the London Java Community pledged to improve the openness and transparency of the Java Community Process if elected to the JCP Executive Committee. We promised to help bridge the gap between the decision makers and on-the-ground developers. Our voting record and active participation in the JCP show that we have made real progress towards these goals. In addition, we achieved more than even we imagined by launching and championing Adopt-a-JSR, a program that has both improved feedback to expert groups from developers, and increased involvement from the people who use Java everyday in their professional capacities.

If re-elected, we will continue actively improving the openness and transparency of the JCP, and expand our successful programs to voice the needs of developers and communities worldwide.

Thanks!
The LJC JCP Committee

LJC Minutes for Meeting on 25th July 2012

Attendees:

• Martijn Verburg
• David Illsley
• Somay Nakhal
• Jim Gough
• Trisha Gee
• Richard Warburton

Adopt a JSR

General consensus to run the Adopt OpenJDK style hackdays for the Adopt a JSR program.

Action Items:

• RW/JG/MV/BE – Write a “How to run your hack day” article for Java Magazine and the wiki – Google doc
• RW – Organise a 308 Type annotations hack day
• RW/MV – Organise a F2F with JAX organisers to sort out JAX London Lambdas Hackday in October
• SN – Organise hackdays for CDI (contact Luigi) and JSON + Websockets
• MV – Get hold of Colin Crist for JMS 2.0 (or IBM)

Voting:

• We will vote yes on SIP Servlet 2.0 (JSR-359), it simply brings an existing standard up to JEE6 which we think is a good thing.

Action Items:

• BE – Submit “Yes” vote for JSR-359 (Done)

Misc:

The rest of the meeting was spent discussing aspects of Java 8 and its modularity story, a decision was made to discuss further with Oracle.

Cheers,

Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP Committee)

Thanking Simon Maple

Simon Maple has withdrawn from the LJC JCP Committee to focus on his exciting new position at IBM as well as other exciting changes. We’d like to thank Simon for all of his amazing contributions!

Simon’s help in starting the JCP committee and his early insights on a bunch of JSRs was instrumental in us voting in a credible manner. He also wasn’t shy of injecting a bit of lighthearted-ness during tough legal sessions by instigating a few chip wars between committee members

From the JCP Committee we’d like to say “Thanks Simon,  and see you at the Open Conf!”

Cheers,

Martijn (on behalf of the LJC JCP committee)

Minutes for the LJC/JCP Committee Meeting on 28th May

Attendees

Ben Evans
Martijn Verburg
James Gough
Trisha Gee
David Illsley
Somay Nakhal
Richard Warburton

Admin

• Everyone happy with meetings at jClarity offices.
• JG to doodle for next meeting
• RW to write up minutes from last meeting, and this meeting.

Adopt OpenJDK
The committee discussed the progress being made in this space.  A combination of a mailing list and an irc channel seems to have spurred contributions and made it easier to run and manage.  It would be a good idea to backport these to adopt a jsr.

• Still plan to keep Adopt a JSR separate from Adopt OpenJDK.
• RW + MV to setup a mailing list and irc channel for Adopt a JSR – (Done).

Brazil Face to Face

• A lot of procedural discussion.
• Several ME members not turning up.
• Next version of ME will be rebaselined off of Java 7 in 18 months.
• TOTVS (co-hosting with Soujava) introduced the Committee to Ginga-J – a Java-based digital TV standard used on top of the ISDB-T international standard (used primarily in Japan & South America)
  • This has the potential to allow developers to reach a South American user base of 350 million users via their TVs.
  • The potential and challenges that TOTVS face on the TV standardisation committees bear some similarities to those faced in other parts of the JCP.
  •  Strategies for co-operation with other standards organisations were discussed
  • Also ways to ensure that Java remains a central part of the ISDB-T story for IPTV.
• Adopt Openjdk discussion at the Face to Face
  • Discussions with Anil Kumar at Intel.
  • Possible Hardware to host adopt openjdk.
  • Initially this could be hosted by LJC, but eventually broaden out to a larger community.
• Some desire to extend the length of use for OpenJDK TCK to 5 years from Azul, however, no solid conclusions on the matter.

Lambdas Hackday

• … went very well
• Some bugs found, and some lessons learned for further hackday discussion.
• RW to write up feedback for discussion on the mailing list – (Done).

Other Business

• RW + JG to organise JSR 310 Hackday in London.
• JG to investigate Java EE standards further
• BE & MV to ask about putting Private LJC List read-only on the JCP Mailing List.

JSR-310 Method Naming Survey Results

As part of the London Java Communities efforts to help out in JSR-310 efforts, we have been working with Stephen Colebourne to gather the feedback of the community on method naming conventions that would potentially be used in the upcoming implementation. After all, it is hoped that everyone in the Java world writing systems using dates will be potentially using the API from Java 8 onwards.

The intention of this blog post is to publicise the results and to encourage you to participate in the discussion. We are at the crossroads of finalising design and adapting the already comprehensive implementation to match the requirements. Please join us on the mailgroup and continue the discussion: mail group

There are 9 public questions that will be broken down into the general responses. The response has been immense, and behalf of everyone involved with the project I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation. The total number of surveys received was 1824. These results will contribute towards steering the API changes discussed on the mailing list.

The statistics below are summary statistics for the main categories, a full CSV of all anonymous responses is available here.

1. It is planned to have an enum for the month-of-year (January to December). What should this class be called?

• 89.21% chose the format Month – eg. Month.APRIL.
• 8.55% chose the format MonthOfYear – eg. MonthOfYear.APRIL.
• 2.24% gave an alternate response.

2. There will be a class representing a date on its own (no time, or time-zone). Thinking about this class, what set of methods would you prefer to use.

• 51.07% chose getYear(), getMonth(), getDay(), getDayOfYear(), getDayOfWeek().
• 37.30% chose getYear(), getMonth(), getDayOfMonth(), getDayOfYear(), getDayOfWeek().
• 9.44% chose getYear(), getMonthOfYear(), getDayOfMonth(), getDayOfYear(), getDayOfWeek().
• 2.19% gave an alternate response.

3. Thinking specifically about getDay() vs getDayOfMonth(), which of these statements do you agree with? (This was a select multiple question)

• 23.81% chose if I saw getDay() I would assume it was day-of-month.
• 20.33% chose I would quickly learn that getDay() meant day-of-month.
• 19.88% chose while it is longer, getDayOfMonth() is a lot clearer.
• 16.63% chose getDay() is not clear without reading Javadoc.
• 15.83% chose getDayOfMonth() is too long.
• 3.52% gave an alternate response.

4. There will be a class representing a time-of-day on its own (no date, or time-zone). Thinking about this class, what set of methods would you prefer to use?

• 72.44% chose getHour(), getMinute(), getSecond(), getNano().
• 13.30% chose getHour(), getMinute(), getSecond(), getNanoOfSecond().
• 8.04% chose getHourOfDay(), getMinuteOfHour(), getSecondOfMinute(), getNanoOfSecond().
• 6.23% gave an alternate response.

5. The month-of-year can be represented as both an int and as an enum. How should method access to this be achieved?

• 58.29% chose only have a method returning the enum, with the int value available via a method on the enum.
• 12.31% chose getMonthValue() returns an int; getMonth() returns an enum.
• 8.11% chose getMonth() returns an int; getMonthOfYear() returns an enum.
• 7.08% chose only have a method returning the int, removing the enum from the API.
• 7.08% chose getMonthInt() returns an int; getMonth() returns an enum.
• 3.91% chose getMonthOfYear() returns an int; getMonth() returns an enum.
• 3.22% gave an alternate response.

6. What factors should drive the method naming choice?

Question	Agree: 1	2	3	4	5: Disagree	Not sure	#
6.1 Shortest possible	20.45% (346)	22.75% (385)	21.28% (360)	13.71% (232)	19.03% (322)	2.78% (47)	1692
6.2 Pattern based	31.36% (519)	32.51% (538)	16.19% (268)	4.95% (82)	2.05% (34)	12.93% (214)	1655
6.3 Clear when read	65.61% (1139)	23.33% (405)	6.05% (105)	4.09% (71)	0.23% (4)	0.69% (12)	1736
6.4 Verbose	7.61% (125)	13.40% (220)	28.38% (466)	22.41% (368)	21.56% (354)	6.64% (109)	1642
6.5 Unambiguous	44.14% (746)	29.64% (501)	15.86% (268)	5.27% (89)	2.37% (40)	2.72% (46)	1690
6.6 Quick to write	17.15% (286)	23.14% (386)	26.92% (449)	16.91% (282)	13.37% (223)	2.52% (42)	1668
6.7 Consistent	64.57% (1099)	23.80% (405)	6.17% (105)	3.53% (60)	0.41% (7)	1.53% (26)	1702
6.8 Balance of short and clear	48.93% (823)	27.35% (460)	14.15% (238)	5.35% (90)	1.84% (31)	2.38% (40)	1682
6.9 No need to read Javadoc	32.15% (542)	30.72% (518)	20.94% (353)	9.13% (154)	4.63% (78)	2.43% (41)	1686

7. Too large to publish easily in the blog.

8. Have you used Joda-Time?

• 41.48% chose never.
• 36.34% chose occasionally.
• 22.18% chose frequently.

9. How much experience do you have with Java?

• 69.95% chose more than 5 years.
• 22.94% chose 2-5 years.
• 4.62% chose less than 2 years.
• 2.48% chose Java is not my main language.