These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #323. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has not approved this ballot.

JSR323

StageJSR Review Ballot

Ballot durationJan 8, 2008 to Jan 22, 2008

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

BEA Systems

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

SAS Institute Inc.

Suleiman, Hani

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2008-01-17 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Sun believes this could be an interesting area of research, but does not yet see the kind of community or vendor support that would motivate standardizing on a mechanism in the JCP. Currently we think that os virtualization techniques are providing more complete solutions for the kind of problems outlined in this proposal.

We would encourage the spec lead and supporters to explore venues such as openjdk.org as a means to continue the research and solicit feedback from the wider developer community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-17 Intel Corp. voted No with the following comment:
Generally, for standardization in JCP, the request should represent the interests of varied approaches to a problem or various alternative implementations where there is a community that needs standardization in order to progress.  We don't see evidence for that in this JSR.  We also aren't convinced that, if this were to be done in JCP, it isn't better to do it in the VM rather than as in this proposal.  Research in this area seemed to have tailed off a few years ago without any consensus, with interest shifting to hypervisor based virtualization.  We aren't convinced there is a need for the standardization suggested in this JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-21 IBM voted No with the following comment:
We share many of the concerns raised by other EC members and therefore, regretfully, do not support this proposal at this time.

IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage.  We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-21 Hewlett-Packard voted No with the following comment:
HP shares the concerns expressed by Intel, Sun and other EC members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-21 BEA Systems voted No with the following comment:
BEA shares the same concerns expressed by HP, IBM, and Intel and other EC members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-21 Fujitsu Limited voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-22 SAS Institute Inc. voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-22 Lea, Doug voted No with the following comment:
This work is not ready for a JSR. I encourage
the proposers to work on and gain experience with
implementations before re-proposing as a JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-22 Suleiman, Hani voted Abstain with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-22 Google Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Google believes that this JSR is premature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-01-22 Apache Software Foundation voted No with the following comment:
The ASF regretfully also votes no, supporting and echoing the concerns of the other EC members. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------