Thank you, Ivar, for the conclusion.
The vote is done and I want to assure you that I respect that.
I just want to comment that, for such important ballots, in the future, I'd welcome that there's a separate discussion thread on the mailing list before the ballot is started. All those who cast -1 vote raised very serious concerns that might have influenced other votes if those concerns were expressed earlier. It's very irresponsible to have a ballot on such serious issues without a proper discussion.
I know that there were discussions on the platform calls but the ballot was held in the specification committee. Not all who voted participated in the platform discussions. Moreover, the decision in the platform was made with the assumption that GlassFish will support Java 17. However, all companies behind GlassFish that are on the spec committee (Oracle, Fujitsu, Payara) voted -1. OmniFish, currently the biggest contributor to GlassFish, is also against, as well as other very active community contributors to GlassFish.
In summary, I want to repeat what i said yesterday on the platform call - it's very risky to make this decision and rely on the GlassFish team to follow, without any help from other Jakarta EE stakeholders. The GlassFish team had no intentions to support Java 17 in GlassFish 8 and it's only additional burden to support Java 17, without any benefits for GlassFish. In the end, the decision to support Java 17 may, and most probably will, delay the release of Jakarta EE 11, if GlassFish is expected to ratify Jakarta EE 11 on Java 17. In the future, it's very important to have a proper discussion among all voting parties before decisions like this are made, so that all voting parties have good understanding of the consequences of their vote.
All the best,Ondro Mihalyi
Director, Jakarta EE expert
Omnifish OÜ, Narva mnt 5, 10117 Tallinn, Estonia | VAT: EE102487932
