Can 30 days do wonders for Project Jigsaw? The benefits of voting ‘No’
© Shutterstock / Stanciu
Anything can happen in 30 days. Although the EC didn’t approve the Public Review Ballot for JSR 376, the Jigsaw ship has not sailed yet. David Blevins, founder and CEO of Tomitribe explained in a blog post why people should think past the red checkbox.
When the EC failed to approve the Public Review Ballot for JSR 376, some people thought that Project Jigsaw is doomed. There were 13 votes against and 10 in favor and although the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR 376 were hardly encouraging, David Blevins, founder and CEO of Tomitribe claims that the red checkbox has its benefits.
Project Jigsaw voting: The lesser evil
Blevins revealed in the blog post published after the announcement of the results that voting “yes with conditions” has its dangers and urged people to think past the red checkbox. The CEO of Tomitribe reminded readers that eight years ago, JSR-299 Contexts and Dependency Injection (CDI) 1.0 passed the Public Review Ballot with several yes-with-conditions votes but “it took nine months to resolve all the issues before CDI 1.0 could be confidently put up for a Final Approval Ballot in November where it passed in December. As a result, Java EE 6 was delayed, missing JavaOne — the biggest marketing moment of the year — and landing in December — the worst marketing moment of the year.”
Although he acknowledged that the 13 ‘no’ votes might not look good, there are some benefits that go hand in hand with a negative vote [no-with-conditions]. Blevins opined that “a no-with-conditions vote on a Public Review Ballot keeps pressure on both the spec lead and the EC.”
Furthermore, the EC member who chose to vote against “will need to stay very engaged in seeing their issues resolved as they’ll be required to vote again in 30 days.” Even though they will likely vote yes-with-conditions after the 30 days expire, Blevins chose to see the glass half full:
- The spec lead gets effectively 60 continuous days of EC attention (15+30+15) as opposed to just 15 days
- The spec lead gets the luxury of a public statement from each EC member that the changes do or do not resolve the conditions
- The 30-day window is not enough time to add significantly to the scope, therefore all parties must focus on what is truly important
- The spec enters the next phase, just like it would have with a passing yes-with-conditions vote
Can 30 days do wonders for Jigsaw?
Software AG, for example, was among the members that voted No but they claimed that the 30 days can be used “to attempt to form a healthier consensus within the EG.” SAP SE also revealed that they expect “the expert group and spec lead to use the additional 30 days for regular meetings in order to sort out the remaining issues and come up with a new, more sustainable and forward-looking proposal.”
Meanwhile, London Java Community stated the following:
If required, we very much look forward to being able to vote ‘YES’ in <= 30 days on a version that has had that little bit of extra time for the EG (and the ecosystem) to discuss / implement / test some of these difficult spec items. Certainly the last 14 days have shown that consensus can be reached even when viewpoints have started in opposing corners, and we think another short time period to really bed in the last sticking points is needed.
Tomitribe also voted ‘No’ but added that the 30-day window can do wonders.
We see positives in opting for a 30 fixed window for feedback to and from the EC as it keeps pressure which is critical for momentum. JSR-299 (CDI 1.0) went 9 months between its Public Review Ballot and Final Approval Ballot, delaying Java EE 5 significantly. We would not want to see the same happen here. The 30-day window applies both to the spec lead and essentially to the EG who knows we’ll be voting immediately after.
Though a No vote feels like rejection we ultimately believe it is the most supportive vote for gaining a greater level of consensus we believe is necessary from a JSR, while still keeping time pressure.
David Blevins kept the positive tone in his blog post and concluded that the EC members that voted ‘No’ “were doing so to trigger the benefits. When it comes to Jigsaw, we can’t afford to be turning down any advantages.”