These are the final results of the Public Review Reconsideration Ballot for JSR #243. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.
JSR243
StagePublic Review Reconsideration Ballot
Ballot durationFeb 22, 2005 to Feb 28, 2005
Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation
Apple Computer, Inc.
BEA Systems
Borland Software Corporation
Fujitsu Limited
Google Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel Corp.
Lea, Doug
Nortel
Oracle
Progress Software
Red Hat
SAP SE
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2005-02-22 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
An agreement between the Spec Leads of 2 Expert Groups is not binding on the Executive Committee.       That said, the extra time for review has demonstrated that the JSR 243 Public Draft is consistent with the "letter" from the Spec Leads so there is no problem there in any case.  In similar situations in the future, it would be better to use the usual process of initiating a new JSR rather than a letter from Spec Leads.  That would provide more transparency and involvement of the community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-22 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-22 Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with the following comment:
Let a thousand flowers bloom :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-23 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-23 Nortel voted Yes with the following comment:
Nortel supports the JDO Technology and its ongoing use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-25 Progress Software voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-27 Red Hat voted Abstain with the following comment:
Since this newly proposed specification is essentially identical to the one proposed during the Public Review Ballot vote, we would see no reason to change our vote, hence our previous comment remains. 

However, while this vote is fundamentally a NO vote, we cast it as an ABSTAIN to acknowledge Sun's role in trying to clarify the situation through their FAQ, and most specifically the central role of persistence in the JSR-220 specification and in the Java platform as a whole: "The new persistence API as defined by JSR 220 will be the standard Java persistence API going forward.".

This JSR-243/JSR-220 discussion, initiated by some JSR-243 proponents, has only brought disruption on the JSR-220 side and no sign of flexibility on the JSR-243 side. This could give the feeling of a coup to slow down the JSR-220 EG. 

The J2EE/EJB specification set represents the significant part of today�s Java ecosystem. Hence, in order to remain competitive, it is critical to make sure these specifications don�t get disrupted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 BEA Systems voted Yes with the following comment:
After further review, BEA has concluded that there is a vibrant JDO community which needs this specification, regardless of whether we are successful in achieving an overarching persistence strategy. As a result, I see no reason to hold this community hostage to a goal that may or may not be achieved. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 Oracle voted Abstain with the following comment:
Oracle's primary concern has been partially addressed with the FAQ published by Sun reiterating that JSR 220 is the intended standard Java persistence API moving forward.  Given the clear direction set by Sun on this issue, we will not object to the evolution of the specification to serve the existing JDO community.  It is vital that the persistence work in JSR 220/EJB 3.0 for the mainstream J2EE community not be disrupted.  EGB 3.0 is making excellent progress as part of the umbrella J2EE 5.0 specification and has been well received.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 IBM voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 SAP SE voted Yes with the following comment:
SAP thanks the JSR 220 and JSR 243 Spec Leads for the additional clarifications that were provided for this reconsideration ballot. We are satisfied with the clarifications regarding the future roadmap of EJB 3, JDO 2 and the new J2SE persistence model that is being developed as part of JSR 220 and therefore do not see an impediment for JDO 2 to proceed. Given that JSR 220 has the challenging goal to deliver an overarching persistence strategy for Java, it is important that the interests of all existing persistence communities, including JDO, are equally represented in this Expert Group. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 Borland Software Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-02-28 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------