The JCP has been attacked at various times for being too closed. In an effort to change that, Sun created JSR-215, which is building JCP version 2.6. The spec lead will come up with a "transparency plan", which details how the expert group will communicate progress to the community.
- Posted by: Dion Almaer
- Posted on: September 01 2003 10:43 EDT
There will be more chances to get info out, throughout the JSR timeline. For example, the "Community Review" will become an "Early Draft Review" that the public can see.
Read an article on the new JCP: Java Community Process (JCP) 2.6: More ways to get involved
Read up on the JCP pages for JSR-215:
JSR-215 Java Community ProcessSM version 2.6
Summary of the changes with a set of questions and issues for reviewers to consider
Java Community ProcessSM v2.6 for Community Review, with changes red-lined
The community review complete on 8 September 2003. Email any comments to jsr-215-comments at sun dot com.
- Java Community Process (JCP) 2.6 Moving Along by Vic Cekvenich on September 02 2003 21:12 EDT
- Java Community Process (JCP) 2.6 Missed the point by John Rizzo on September 03 2003 03:12 EDT
- users have majority of power by Navitaniuk Denis on September 03 2003 07:04 EDT
- Java Community Process (JCP) 2.6 Moving Along by Cameron Purdy on September 03 2003 13:12 EDT
- Boycott the Java Cartel Process - Viva The Java Republic! by Gerald Bauer on September 04 2003 18:55 EDT
- Boycott the Java Cartel Process - Viva The Java Republic! by anon anon on September 05 2003 17:07 EDT
<Silence is deafening>
Sun has JCP reputation that it is for the vendors, by the vendors, and now transparency to vendors. Its not fixable. JCP vendors (experts) try to impress other vendors with some complex (but sometimes useless) designs. Community != Vendors.
See this is why open source works, because its written by users for users, and therefore opposite of Suns JCP. People use iBatis and Hibernate, not EJB, people use Stuts, not Blueprints.
There are exceptions, Tomcat and JSTL, developed by the users for the users.
So Suns JCP does not matter anymore!, but its nice that vendors can visit with each other.
Opposite is MS, spends a lot of effort listening to users.
One of the criticisms that the JCP has repeatedly had to contend with is the fact that the EC is not a true snapshot of the industry. It has been said that the JCP EC is a body of the vendors and for the vendors. I see no attempt to rectify this situation in the current 2.6 draft. If I may make a suggestion, the JCP EC(s) should be segmented into industry sectors so as to represent truly a snapshot of the industry. The same voting procedures for new members can be used within each sector, meaning that each sector would have the responsibility to vote in its members. The EC could then hold votes on JCP issues and JSR(s) as a whole. This would assure a more even balance within the EC. For instance you could have Vendor, Manufacture, Developer, and Operator/Service provider sectors with an even distribution of EC seats to sectors. Where a seat cannot be filled then the EC chair could have the right to redistribute the seat for the duration.
If I may make a suggestion, the JCP EC(s) should be segmented into industry sectors so as to
> represent truly a snapshot of the industry. The same voting procedures for new members
> can be used within each sector, meaning that each sector would have the responsibility
> to vote in its members.
A construct like this was actually considered when we were designing JCP 2 in early 2000. It was abandoned because of the complexity it adds in forming and maintaining the ECs. Many companies don't easily fit in one category (eg Sun, IBM). Which categories should there be and so on. Instead the approach was chosen that Sun uses the nominated seats to get as best an industry-wide coverage as possible without having pre-fixed allocation numbers and categories. One could argue that on the ME EC there is indeed under-representation from the service providers.
Director, JCP Program Office
Sun Microsystems, Inc
The argument of under-representation from the service providers is in actuality a fact. I understand that participation from the service providers at the JSR level is a contentious point within the JCP. Perhaps a way to assure more participation is to use the nominated seats to bring in the service providers thus giving them a greater stake in the outcome of the JCP. The fact is that the EC was to be a representation of the industry. This has not been fulfilled and it is a sore point in the industry. The opportunity to communicate a fix for this is at hand in JSR 215 (JCP 2.6).
Another item that could be addressed is what process we can use to make sure that the participating members from any company/group are truly representing that companies interests, as well as the industry at large, and not just the interests of a small faction within that company (Long sentence). Perhaps part of the process of selection to the EC should be a check and balance system that as a requirement must be implemented within participating companies. This could take the form of executive sponsorship from a number of key areas of any organization. This would be more difficult in larger companies, but the attempt should be made.
Democracy has one BIG minus - stupid majority.
"users have majority of power"
Let's experts have "power"
Vic, I'm afraid it's often worse than that. Good ideas can come from vendors or end users, and typically vendors do have experts in those fields. The problem is that standardization tends to favor the less innovative, and thus they often (not always, but often enough) are spear-heading the efforts. Also, big companies often offer their "least valuable employees" for the effort, because the more valuable employees have revenue-producing work to do.
Also, there's the old saying of "too many cooks". I remember the C++ and CORBA standardization processes, and they just had too many smart people with too many awesome ideas, and altogether they were producing piles of doo-doo.
Add on top of these things the problem with "politics", particularly when large vendors (including Sun and IBM) hold major sway. Add the fact that a lot of JSRs etc. are started from "donated failed products".
But instead of being all pissed off about it and whining, you should try to participate in the areas that you have background and ideas in. Maybe that means being on the EG, or maybe it means publicly cutting the specs to shreads when they are unveiled. Certainly, it means constructively criticizing the process itself when you see areas that could improve it. Make yourself be part of the solution.
Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
The problem is that standardization tends to favor the less innovative, and thus they often (not always, but often enough) are spear-heading the efforts. Also, big companies often offer their "least valuable employees" for the effort, because the more valuable employees have revenue-producing work to do.
I can't think of a more damning critique of the JCP.
Brian: I can't think of a more damning critique of the JCP.
I don't mean it in the negative. I'm actually quite positive about the JCP, despite any of its warts. It's particularly nice to be involved with a community process that we can constructively criticize, and that over time improves from those criticisms. My hat's off to Sun on this one, seriously. We just need to keep pushing to make it more open, and the processes more effective at bringing the cream to the top. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilence, yes?
Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
The JCP has been attacked at various times for being too closed.
Well, using the word "attack" when a daring soul points out the obvious clearly show the Sun bias here on TSS if I dare to say.
> In an effort to change that, Sun created JSR-215, which is building JCP version
> 2.6. The spec lead will come up with a "transparency plan", which details how
> the expert group will communicate progress to the community.
Well, the issue is not only about transparency but also about who controls the IP (intellectual property), that is, copyright, patents and so on. Coming up with a "transparency plan" is just another PR gimmick and minor touch up. Don't bother. Let's boycott the Java Cartel Process (JCP) and let's free Java and declare the Java Republic.
For more info check out the Viva! call to action @ http://viva.sourceforge.net/action.html Yes, you can make a difference. Join the Free World today.
you're whole "Viva" scheme is so thouroughly absurd, that it's the best laugh I've had since Microsoft had to use Linux to save Windows update