The Java Community Process(SM) Program - JSRs: Java Specification Requests

Use of JCP site is subject to the JCP Terms of Use and the Oracle Privacy Policy

JSR #249
Mobile Service Architecture 2
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2009-02-17 to: 2009-02-23

These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #249. The Executive Committee for ME has approved this ballot.

Votes

Ericsson AB

IBM

Motorola

Nokia Corporation

Orange France SA

Philips Electronics UK Ltd

Qisda Corporation

Research In Motion, LTD (RIM)

Samsung Electronics Corporation

Sheedy, Sean

Siemens AG

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Time Warner Cable Inc.

Vodafone Group Services Limited

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

On 2009-02-17 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-18 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-19 Orange France SA voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-20 Vodafone Group Services Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-20 Philips Electronics UK Ltd voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-22 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-23 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-23 Siemens AG voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-23 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM is voting yes in approval of allowing this JSR to move to the next step in the JCP.  IBM does, however, expect that all component JSRs for JSR 249 - MSA 2 (e.g., JSR 271 MIDP 3) will be final and approved prior to Final Review for JSR 249.  Further, we recommend the JSR 249 Expert Group revisit the current decision to remove JSR 232 Mobile Operational Management as a basis for JSR 249.  JSR 232 and its companion JSR 291 Dynamic Component Support for Java SE drive needed consistency and synergy between mobile, desktop and servers. 

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 2009-02-23 Research In Motion, LTD (RIM) voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-02-23 Sheedy, Sean voted Yes with the following comment:
MSA 2 has provided, via the "Entry Platform", a much-needed and feasible migration path to MSA compliance for the lowest tier of mobile devices.

However, in meeting its goal of "defining a ... highly interoperable application and service environment for developers", MSA 2 faces several challenges:

1) Although it encourages implementers to provide interoperable platforms, MSA 2 relies solely on TCKs for enforcement.  TCKs have not always provided sufficient test coverage, leaving implementations incompatible, as developers with practical experience will attest.

2) The composition of the MSA Expert Group (EG) suggests that developers are represented by proxy, via the developer programs of the EG members that have them.  The confidentiality of MSA 2 proceedings and the relative inactivity of its observer list have not provided assurance that MSA 2 takes maximum advantage of the practical experience of developers from all aspects of the wireless industry in determining specific interoperability needs and identifying solutions for enforcement.

As the ME EC moves the JCP towards increased transparency and the spec leads have declared a desire to address fragmentation issues, my vote to move MSA 2 forward is done with the confidence that MSA 2 will address these issues prior to Final Review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------