Hologic Left Out In Cold While Controversy Burns On

JCP Elections Retrospective

Jessica Thornsby

Debate continues as to why Hologic were nominated, and what the elections mean for the future of JCP.

Hologic may have failed to win a seat on the JCP, but the debate
as to why they were elected in the first place shows no sign of
burning out, despite Oracle breaking with tradition, and speaking
out as to why they nominated Hologic in the first place.

According to Adam Messinger, “small and mid-size companies like
Hologic” are not currently represented on the JCP, which is why
Oracle plumped for Hologic on the JCP. Oracle’s Jeb Dasteel
posted a comment on the JUG Leaders mailing list,
backing up Messinger’s argument by stating that the nomination was
an attempt to “inject some much needed Java end-user and business
perspective into the Executive Committee, as opposed to standards,
technologist, technology vendor, and developer community
perspectives – all of which are already well represented.”

This is an argument that has found support from the community.
Savio Rodrigues commented that “when explained,
the nomination of Hologic is perfectly logical. In fact, you could
question why Java customers were not better represented on the Java
Community Process (JCP) in the past.” Stephen Colebourne (who
initially accused Oracle of trying to manipulate the vote)
has posted a blog that also acknowledges the
validity of Oracle’s train of thought. However, he makes the
relevant point that, if Oracle were aiming to include an end-user
perspective on the JCP, why choose Hologic over all the other
companies? Just being a Java end-user, isn’t enough to set them out
from the crowd.

When it comes to the ratified seats, newly-nominated Credit
Suisse fared much better, assuming their ratified seat on the SE/EE
EC, with 76.72% of the vote. So, what did they do right that
Hologic didn’t? Stephen Colebourne identifies the key differences
between Hologic and Credit Suisse: he judges Credit Suisse to be a
“known company” with a presumed hard core Java operation. Both of
these were sticking points for the Java community when it came to
Hologic. No-one seemed to be sure of who Hologic were, and many –
including Stephen Colebourne – questioned just how involved they
were with Java, beyond their use of Oracle’s E-Business Suite.

Perhaps the most worrying thing to emerge from this
controversial election, was the low turn out of voters. Of the 1286 registered
voters, only 18% cast their vote, which is around 232 people and
organisations. This continues the steady decrease in percentage of
voters, from 33% in 2007, to 26% in 2008 and 21% in 2009. “The
number of votes is roughly in line with the past but the turnout is
lower,” summarised the Aquarium. This is particularly
disappointing, considering the hype and controversy that surrounded
this election. “Less than 250 people/companies (JCP members can be
either) actually voted on the organisation that holds the power to
decide the future of Java. With up to 10 million Java developers
out there, this really is a tiny number. In fact, more people voted
in the latest Java.net poll,” is Stephen Colebourne’s bleak
summary. He interprets the low turn out, as further indication of
the growing irrelevance of the JCP: “is this the best way to
receive community feedback? Somehow it doesn’t feel like it. Once
again I’m encouraged to push for radical JCP reform.”

comments powered by Disqus