Dear JUG leaders,

There has been quite a lot of discussion over the past week about our JCP EC nomination. We thought we would offer our perspective. We nominated Hologic, as with Credit Suisse earlier, to inject some much needed Java end-user and business perspective into the Executive Committee, as opposed to standards, technologist, technology vendor, and developer community perspectives - all of which are already well represented. Those roles also overlap, as we have well-recognized technologists, like Josh Bloch, who are also representing vendor interests. JCP members may disagree with the need for more end-user perspective on the EC, but we think it's an important view that has been underrepresented to date. Having the perspective of a company whose business depends on Java technology -- not as a technology vendor, but as an informed consumer of Java technology -- is valuable.

JSRs are proposed by various JCP members, and the EC is the gate to starting them off, approving them along the way, and approving them when they are complete. Technical work goes on in expert groups. Implementation is done by spec leads in multiple forums, one of which is OpenJDK. Ideally, the EC would actively encourage the various expert groups to be the forums for technical decision-making, sorting through issues, and advancing Java. The EC then fulfills the role of making sure that the expert groups are functioning properly to meet the goals of the JCP overall, as reflected in EC approvals. Having the EC act in this capacity is not, as some have said, "rubber stamping" Oracle's desires.

We hope this offers some clarity our views.