|Jeb Dasteel||Oct 25, 2010 8:05 am|
|Frans Thamura||Oct 25, 2010 8:27 am|
|John Yeary||Oct 25, 2010 8:38 am|
|Frans Thamura||Oct 25, 2010 8:41 am|
|Jim Bethancourt||Oct 25, 2010 9:29 am|
|John Yeary||Oct 25, 2010 9:54 am|
|John Yeary||Oct 25, 2010 10:01 am|
|Frans Thamura||Oct 25, 2010 3:18 pm|
|dan_...@slinestop.com||Oct 26, 2010 5:30 am|
|Frans Thamura||Oct 26, 2010 5:33 am|
|Jim Bethancourt||Oct 27, 2010 8:41 am|
|Subject:||Re: [jug-leaders] JCP EC|
|From:||John Yeary (john...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Oct 25, 2010 8:38:55 am|
I think that the Hologic may be a consumer of Java technology. So is my son. Anyone who uses a browser for an applet, or web start for running an application is a consumer of the technology. In the same vein, we would not want to place my son on the Executive Committee (EC) to determine the course of JSRs and Java technologies. I am also a consumer of airlines. I feel under represented by them, but they are not going to put me in the cockpit because I fly on any particular one.
Normally, I try to stay clear of Oracle bashing because I find it counter productive. I would say that this is a bad decision because a consumer of the technology is not necessarily in the best position to lead it.
An example to make my point. As a consumer of medical technologies we can and have an expectation that the technologies either help us directly, or our doctors (who help us). I don't expect that Java developers are going to be reading x-rays, or mammograms anytime soon. Would they put us on the board of directors for Hologic because we consume their technologies? I image not. I am sure that I am under represented by them though, and my wife is a direct consumer of their mammogram technology.
We can not be all things to all people, and this is a case of that. The JCP and EC represent our domain in the same way that Hologic's domain is medical technology. Hologic would be better for a focus group to meet their needs, and not on the controlling body for Java standards.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jeb Dasteel <jeb....@oracle.com>wrote:
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.
-- John Yeary
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt