These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #352. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

JSR352

StageJSR Review Ballot

Ballot durationNov 15, 2011 to Nov 28, 2011

Votes

SE/EE

Azul Systems, Inc.

Credit Suisse

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Goldman Sachs & Co.

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

London Java Community

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

SouJava

Twitter, Inc.

Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2011-11-16 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-23 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-25 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
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 2011-11-28 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
Red Hat's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  Red Hat would prefer a licensing model that creates an open arena for everyone, including those not members of the JCP and removes any ability for one individual or vendor to exert undue control over a standard. We are an open source company and hence would like to see such a licensing model for JCP contributions. Note however, that this comment is not necessarily directed at the license terms for this JSR, but is a statement of Red Hat's preferred licensing model.

With JSR 348 not accepted, we would also encourage the specification leads to consider adopting that effort for the way in which they conduct this work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 Twitter, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Twitter shares London Java Community's concerns about the lack of compliance with the JSR-348 transparency requirements. We are happy to support this JSR if it does not sanction the usage of a private mailing list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 SouJava voted Yes with the following comment:
This JSR addresses an important need for our community, and our members are happy to see it proposed. Although some issues were raised about transparency intents on this JSR, we are satisfied that they were promptly and effectively addressed by the spec lead. It shows the right mindset for listening and acting on constructive community feedback.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-28 Intel Corp. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-26 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-22 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-27 London Java Community voted No with the following comment:
This JSR does not appear to comply with the transparency requirements for JSR 348.

It makes mention of EG-confidential business being conducted on a private mailing list, which appears to contravene JSR 348.

Specifically: "The Expert Group will conduct business on a publicly readable alias. A private alias will be used only for EG-confidential
information, as needed."

This does not seem to meet the standards of transparency and openness that have been agreed upon.

We therefore conclude that we should vote No on JSR 352.

Can the spec lead investigate this and explain what happened here - how this JSR was submitted in this form? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-11-22 Credit Suisse voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------