OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 2019/1/10
The OpenJDK Governing Board met via conference call on Thursday, 10 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC with the following agenda:
- FOSDEM '19 and OCW plan
- Any other business
Three Board members were present: Georges Saab, Andrew Haley,and Mark Reinhold.
The intent of these minutes is to capture the conversational flow of the Board's discussion and also to record decisions. If you are interested only in the latter then search for the word "AGREED" throughout the text.
1. FOSDEM '19 and OCW plan
After noting the three present Board members constituted a quorum, Georges wished everybody a Happy New Year.
Observing that the agenda was short, Georges suggested that the Governing Board plan a panel discussion at FOSDEM '19 (Brussels, 2 & 3 Feb 2019). Mark seconded saying that he had already submitted the usual OpenJDK Governing Board Q&A. Andrew said he planned to be there. Georges suspected that Doug would attend via video conference as usual and IBM would also be represented.
Mark provided status for the OpenJDK Committers' Workshop (OCW) saying that it would be immediately after FOSDEM on 4 February. The venue was unknown but expected to be around Brussels and convenient to those attending FOSDEM. At this point, attendance was likely to be "first come, first served" since there was no time for formal registration. Attendance fees (if any) would be cash collected at the door.
Andrew believed that several of his colleagues would attend OCW and he was encouraging others to stay in Brussels for another day. Georges observed that the late organization presented a bit of a risk for those making travel plans. Andrew noted that some people were not comfortable with the idea of an "unconference" since it sounded a bit ramshackle. Mark said that unlike the OCW in August 2018, there would be no prepared presentations. Andrew approved saying that the proximity of the OCW allowed FOSDEM to concentrate on technical presentations instead of internal, procedural OpenJDK issues. The FOSDEM organizers felt free to reject all proposals of that nature. Andrew thought this choice would make FOSDEM better for all.
2. Any other business
Andrew introduced the topic of OpenJDK Project Lead transitions, saying that the transition for the OpenJDK 8 Updates Project Lead was not going as quickly as he had hoped. His main concern was that various people in Oracle had suggested that he begin publishing information about any new processes he wished to adopt. However, since the hand-off had not occurred, he did not believe that was appropriate. Andrew thought it would be nice if Lead succession included some overlap time. Georges noted that there was no formal description of the succession process but there were some historical precedents. Andrew assured Georges that he was not suggesting the need for a formalized process. He would like the current Project Lead to publically name a successor well before the new Lead took ownership. He also requested examples of best practices for similar future transitions.
Georges asked how succession applied to JDK 11 updates. Mark replied that JDK 8 Updates was a separate OpenJDK Project but that JDK 11 updates were part of the JDK Updates Project. The Bylaws do not define co-project or sub-project leads. While these roles could be formalized, he wished to avoid it. Continuing, Mark said that within the JDK Updates Project, each release can have its own lead maintainer. Agreeing with Mark's basic description, Andrew added that it was reasonable to assume that those working on the release would continue to do things as they always had. He did not see a need for a formal leadership-change process. Georges reminded the Board that the intent of the JDK Updates Project was to reduce overhead for the six month release cadence. The single Project reduces administrative overhead and eliminates the need for an OpenJDK Contributor to have a Committer and/or Reviewer Call For Votes (CFV) for every update release.
To address Andrew's original concern regarding the JDK 8 Updates Project Lead transition, Mark agreed to ask the current leadership team to separate naming a successor from the actual hand-off. They should ask for nominations (or self-nominations) for the new Lead position then choose one of the nominees. Mark asked Andrew whether there was anybody else who might be interested in becoming the JDK 11 Updates Lead. Andrew replied that he was considering eventually asking one of his senior associates to take on the position, since he has quite a few commitments, but that he would accept it for now.
At this point, the Board adjourned.