Leave the gun; take the cannoli: The JDO tragedy
I must make my affiliations clear: I am a member of the Java Community Process (JCP) but do not and have not served on the expert groups of JSR-243 or JSR-220 on EJB 3.0.
My problem is not with these companies exercising an opinion, rather it is with the reasons some of them have provided us in their voting comments. Certainly, as elected members of the Executive Committee, they have the privilege of voting on such matters. By that token, they are the Java community's representatives on the EC.
Some have voiced the concern that multiple persistence technologies would end up "confusing" the development communities. Kids, that's you and me. With our fancy degrees and years of design and development experience, We would be led astray by a new persistence option. I think the JDO spec should have lived to face a Darwinian end. It should be you and I, the Java development community that decides if we think JDO is a viable option in our frameworks, products and projects. By preempting that decision, these folks have done us a great disservice. As the Apache Foundation has suggested in its comments, "...we believe that this is something for the market to decide, rather than one company." I agree commercial interests are important and most companies are guided by those more than anything else. That is not bad in itself. I just cannot help but think that the JDO spec was shot by the wayside with the pretension that it was for the common good.
I encourage anybody who has read this far to also look at the results of the JSR-243 Public Review Ballot. There certainly are some gems in there, as far as comments go. You can make up your own mind and may even reach a different conclusion than I have. That's fair. At least you made that decision.
I also encourage you to consider joining the JCP, or if you already are a member, please think hard and weigh all options when you vote.