Section 13. Conclusion and analysis

Abstract

The comment attributed to Winston Churchill: “This is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end. But it does mark the end of the beginning” is, I believe, an appropriate epitaph for SMI’s effort to become a PAS submitter. SMI must now submit their Java specification to ISO/IEC JTC1 for consideration as a PAS, and ask for its approval. The key to success lies in whether or not the National Bodies — especially the United States — are convinced that SMI has made a real effort to open the specification to ensure that all have been heard both in the current specification and in the follow-on activities. But this is a topic for a future issue, because speculation over SMI’s future actions may rage endlessly. However, for the moment, things are quiet and there is time for reflection. he results of the National Body vote emphasized the victory of process over passion. In the final vote, the loud remonstrances of the United States and China fell on deaf ears. This is significant. In the past, a negative vote by the US was frequently enough to defeat a proposal; US influence on other countries was substantial. In this case, however, the negative vote by US and China did not convince the other nations to put the standardization of Java at risk. But now the question becomes: What happened? The vote affected three separate areas: SMI, the participants in the process, and the process itself. I’d like to examine each of these separately. SMI, depending on who you speak to, either won a war or achieved a Pyrrhic victory. Those who believe the former feel that SMI and its “open Java process” was vindicated by the international community. On the other hand, opponents of the proposal can point to the fact that the next vote requires a two-thirds majority in favor of the technical specification, and that there is already a good deal of controversy regarding the specification. It is clear that SMI “won” the first battle — the question now is: Where will the remainder of the war be fought? SMI’s PAS application was not intended to “win” a standards war, but to add “openness” to the JAVA portfolio. The only reason a company adds a product attribute is in response to user demand. It may very well be that ISO acceptance of the PAS proposal is all the “openness” that Sun needs. I believe that all the participants in the process— from individuals to companies to organizations—lost. The individuals did not cover themselves with glory; their comments demonstrate that they were willing to sacrifice principles for short-term gain. The sharpness of the debate reflects a “win-lose” mentality that denies the idea of consensus, and over the long term, corrodes standardization ideals. Standardization is about agreement and reaching a viable solution that everyone can embrace. The PAS debate is in sharp contrast to these ideals. The individuals involved, from managers to directors to vice presidents, all displayed complete intolerance for the views of other parties. In many cases, they were unwilling to listen to or consider what was Section 13. Conclusion and Analysis