►
From YouTube: A Freakonomic Take on Open Standards and Jakarta EE | Jakarta Tech Talks - January 2020
Description
Words like standard, de-facto, de-jure and open are frequently used and abused in our industry. The reality is that few people really understand what these words actually mean or how these ideas affect their own professional lives in the long and short term.
This session aims to clear the air on some of these terms and outline why open standards like Jakarta EE are critically important to you today and in the future. We will explore these concepts in the context of well-established economic theories on competition, monopoly power, the network effect, innovation, opensource and open standards - in true Freakonomist style!
A
Right,
so
here
we
go.
Today's
talk
is
a
freakonomics
take
on
open
standards
and
jakarta
ii.
So
this
is
not
a
technical
talk,
but
it's
actually
one
of
the
talks.
It's
really
truly
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
and
I
believe
this
is
actually,
if
there's
one
talk
I
could
give.
This
is
a
talk
that
I
believe
I
can
uniquely
provide
the
most
amount
of
value.
So
this
is
not
a
talk
about
how
you
can
use
the
technology
in
your
day
job
or
how
to
use
a
specific
aspect
of
it.
A
But
rather
this
is
a
talk
more
holistically
about
this
technology
from
a
different
perspective
in
in
this
part,
you
create
economic
perspective
and
I'll,
explain
in
a
second
why
that
is,
but
in
short,
I'm
really
glad
that
the
Eclipse
Foundation
and
the
Tech
Talk
series
decided
to
have
this
talk
and
solve
value,
so
that
other
funny
word
in
the
title
freakanomics.
What
is
is
that
about
so
this
goes
back
a
little
bit
to
my
own
background.
A
So,
to
give
you
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
background
on
me,
you
know
I
didn't
actually
start
in
this
field.
As
a
computer
scientist
I
started
in
this
field
back
in
my
freshman
year
as
an
economist,
so
computer
science
was
was
a
sort
of
a
side
hobby
of
mine
at
that
point
in
time,
and
I
still
do
retain
a
interest
in
an
economic.
Certainly,
I
look
at
I.
Listen
to
these
two
authors.
This
is
an
old
book.
It's
a
it's!
A
New,
York
Times
bestseller
by
now,
and
the
authors
actually
have
a
podcast.
A
It's
a
very
interesting
project.
So
I'll
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
book
and
what
this
book
is
about.
If
you
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
basically
what
this
book
is
about
and
what
these,
what
these
authors
are
about
is
the
fact
that
economics
is
actually
not
about
all
of
our
dollars
and
cents.
It's
it's
not
all
about.
You
know
macroeconomic
GDP
and
inflation
rates,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
A
At
the
end
of
the
day,
economics
is
actually
about
understanding
human
behavior
and
what
motivates
people
and
what
motivates
markets
in
taking
an
analytical
and
data-driven
approach
to
understanding
the
world.
So
this
book
in
freakanomics
it
takes
a
look
at
many
different
aspects
that
you
wouldn't
think
of
so
things
like
abortion
and
population
rates
and
things
like
drug
dealers.
Why?
Some
some
people
decide
to
be
drug
dealers?
What
is
the
effective
way
of
naming
a
child
a
certain
way,
and
you
know,
can
that
predict
their
future
and
so
on?
A
So
it's
a
it's
a
very
interesting
book
and
what
this
book,
when
I
read
it
made
me
realize,
is
that
I'm
actually
looking
at
our
particular
field,
server-side
Java,
tewfiq
freakonomics
eyes,
and
this
is
really
the
reason,
fundamental
reason
why
I
am
involved
in
things
like
Java,
EE
and
Jakarta
II
and
I
thought.
You
know
after
this
realization.
I
need
to
share
this
realization
with
whoever
I
can,
because,
even
if
they
are
not
an
economist,
they
may
understand
why
I
am
looking
at
these
things.
A
The
way
I
am-
and
it's
perhaps
important
for
them
to
to
realize
this
as
well.
So
that's
a
bit
about
Freakonomics
and
and
what
this
talk
is
about.
It's
about
taking
a
look
at
open
standards
and
jakarta
ii
from
an
economic
standpoint
in,
in
short,
a
analytical
market
space
standpoint
so
believe
it
or
not.
Standards
are
everywhere
right.
So
it's
not
just
about
us
in
in
terms
of
programming
and
technology.
We
need,
we
tend
to
be
very,
very
heavily
driven
by
standards.
So,
whatever
you
look
there,
so
there's
a
always
a
standard
behind
it.
A
But
in
fact,
even
if
you
look
at
your
day
to
day
job
or
day
to
day
life,
what
you'll
realize
very
quickly
is
behind
almost
everything
in
the
modern
world
there
is
a
standard
behind
it.
Everything
that's
manufactured
everything
that
you
use
is
usually
backed
by
some
kind
of
standard
standards
and
some
kind
of
standards
body.
A
So
there's
a
reason
why
this
is-
and
this
is
why,
fundamentally
why
standards
are
important
for
us
in
the
chopped-up
world
as
well
and
in
particular,
there's
from
an
economic
standpoint,
there's
one
particular
reason
that
is
the
most
important
one,
and
that
is
the
one
that
we
will
focus
a
little
bit
of
our
time.
Understanding
today,
but
let's
take
a
look
at
the
reasons
from
a
holistic
standpoint,
just
so
we
all
are
sort
of
on
the
same
page
before
we
take
our
journey
into
understanding
our
Jakarta
and
open
standards
from
an
economic
standpoint.
A
So
the
first
is
interoperability
standards
give
us
an
interoperability,
meaning
that
if
there's
a
producer
and
a
manufacturer
of
two
different
things,
they
can't
always
meet
on
a
one-to-one
basis
to
agree
upon
how
they're
thin
two
things
can
work
together
with
each
other.
So
the
best
way
of
countering
this
is
having
an
interrogatory
standard
to
say:
hey.
This
is
given
a
type
of
producer
and
supplier.
This
is
how
they
interact
with
each
other,
and
that
applies
to
software
as
well.
In
order
to
work
for
two
bits
of
software,
we
work
with
each
other.
A
You
need
standards.
Standards
are
good
for
Portability
and
compatibility,
so
this
is
more
along
the
lines
of
somebody
that
needs
to
depend
on
something
else
in,
in
our
terms,
let's
say
we're
application
developers
and
we
depend
on
something
to
run
our
application
on.
So
what
standards
allow
you
to
do
in
this
case?
It
gives
you
a
base.
Minimum
set
of
things
that
you
can
rely
upon
and
the
end
result
is
that
you
can
move
your
thing
from
one
place
to
the
other.
A
That's
what
compatibility
and
portability
at
the
end
of
the
day,
good
gives
you
application.
Servers
are
a
very
good
example
of
that.
You
can
basically
make
some
small
changes
to
your
application,
but
be
able
to
move
from
one
application
server
to
another.
One
vendor
to
another
standards
provide
a
baseline
quality
of
service
right.
So
if
nobody
guarantees
what
the
quality
of
services
you
won't
know,
what
you
can
depend
on
this
is
especially
important
for
things
like
food,
food,
safety,
transportation,
safety.
You
need
those
those
types
of
standards
to
be
in
place.
A
For
those
reasons,
standards
provide
a
core
stable
core
for
broad
ecosystems.
So
when
you
have
something
that
is
very,
very
important
that
a
bunch
of
people
rely
upon,
you
need
that
thing
to
be
predictable
and
well
understood.
I'd
say
that
is
that
thing
is,
let's
say,
controlled
by
a
monopoly
or
defined
in
a
proprietary
fashion.
That's
a
very
high
risk
ecosystem
because
anything
changes
in
that
thing
that
so
many
people
depend
upon
or
guess
what
we're
all
going
to
be
negatively
impacted
by
those
changes.
A
So
that's
why
another
reason
why
you
need
open
standards
to
define
that
core,
stable,
core,
reliable
core
for
a
very,
very
broad
ecosystem.
You
need
to
maximize
vendor
and
implementation
neutrality,
minimize
lock-in
risks.
So
if
you're
a
business
person,
you
will
well
understand
this
right.
So
if
you're
spending
a
whole
bunch
of
money
on
a
vendor,
you
don't
want
to
be
so
tied
to
that
vendor
that
if
something
happens
to
that
vendor
or
if
that
vendor
decides
to
be
not
so
good,
there's
no
way
for
you
to
get
out
of
it
right.
A
So
the
standards
provides
you
that
that
vendor
neutrality
and
a
risk
mitigation
from
lockup
and
standards
reduce
unnecessary
fragmentation
right.
So
this
is
an
interesting.
You
can
also
have
an
entire
talk
on
this
particular
topic,
but
there
is
a
question
of
when
is
choices
too
many
right.
So
there
is
a.
There
is
a
point
in
time
with
this
point
of
diminishing
returns,
of
having
too
many
choices
or
too
many
choices
simply
just
add
to
hyper
competition
and
noise
rather
than
actual
customer
value.
So
there
is
a.
A
There
is
a
point
in
time,
especially
for
things
that
are
very
commonplace,
very,
very
foundational
that
you
don't
actually
want
that
much
choice.
You
just
want
to
know.
Okay,
this
is
the
thing
I
want.
I
want
to
use
and
I
want
to
go
with
it
and
that's
where
open
standards
come
into
play
as
well
and
we'll
talk
more
about
this.
A
This
is
a
this
is
a
point
that's
correlated
with
the
healthy
competitive
ecosystems,
a
point
as
as
well
so
in
some
cases
as
a
consumer,
you
are
actually
want
to
deliberately
limit
your
set
of
choices
to
a
set
of
things
that
are
standards
and
your
interoperable
and
supported
by
multiple
parties.
And
finally,
this
is
a
point
that
we'll
talk
about
a
bit
more
in
depth.
Today,
majority
of
this
talk
has
been
to
be
dedicated
to
exploring
this
topic.
Standards
play
an
important
role
in
maintaining
healthy,
competitive
ecosystems.
Under
certain
circumstances.
A
There
are
certain
circumstances
where
really
without
standards,
you
wind
up
with
a
with
a
very
very
bad
market
outcome
and
that's
what
what
are
we
talking
about
and
that's
the
idea
that
we'll
explore
more
about
today
and
that's
the
fundamental
reason
why
things
like
open
standards
and
specifically
chocolate
ie
is
so
important
to
us.
Okay,
so
some
of
you
might
be
surprised
about
the
fact
that
then
I'm
talking
about
this
topic
at
all-
and
you
might
be
wondering-
is
this
something
I
make
you
well
I'm,
not
right.
A
I
think
that
and
I
found
very
curious
years
ago
is
it
is
so
iesous
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
know
what
that
is.
It's
an
international
standards
organization.
It's
it's
one
other,
like
the
UN,
it's
a
multinational
organization
that
plays
a
very
important
part
in
my
in
our
world.
It
actually
has
to
do
with
things
like
food
safety
and
transportation,
safety
and
they've
actually
bothered
documenting,
and
then
the
sponsor
economists
to
study
this
very
topic
that
we
will
talk
about
today.
A
So
if
you,
if
you
have
a
bit
of
time,
take
a
look
at
these
resources,
some
of
them
might
seem
a
little
bit.
Let's
say
obscure
to
you.
If
you
don't
come,
if
you
don't
have
any
coming
background,
but
it
might
also
be
interesting
to
take
a
look
at
this
just
to
understand
that
we
don't
operate
in
a
vacuum,
so
we're
interconnected
with
a
whole
bunch
of
things
that
are
not
necessarily
about
writing
code
all
right.
So
in
order
to
understand
any
of
this,
there's
a
simple
concept
that
you
actually
need
to
understand.
A
This
is
a
simple
concept
that
I
found
fascinating
in
my
underground.
In
my
undergraduate
years
this
is
a
been
around.
This
is
a
theory.
That's
been
around
for
a
long
time.
It's
been
around
essentially
since
the
since
the
1930s
right
right
after
the
depression,
the
people
got
to
understand
this
interesting
phenomenon
and
it
allows
us
to
sort
of
understand
our
role
a
bit
there.
So
this
is
something
called
the
network
effect.
So
let's
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
understanding
this
network
effect.
A
So,
as
you
can
see
on
my
screen
here,
I
have
a
picture
of
a
a
bunch
of
telephones,
so
you
can
understand
where
this
theory
actually
comes
from
it.
It
comes
directly
from
believe
it
or
not-
the
inventor
okay,
of
off
telephone,
some
guy
that
actually
lived
very
close
to
where
I
live
today,
and
this
is
where
the
observation
came
from.
So
let's
assume
in
that
you
have
these
three
different
phone
networks.
A
A
Let's
say:
there's
a
slightly
bigger
network,
let's
say
a
network
of
farmers
that
decided
to
keep
put
up
their
own
poles
and
ran
phone
lines
from
their
house
to
another,
and
these
there's
these
five
families
that
can
call
each
other,
and
that's
it.
That's
that's
the
that's
their
phone
network
and
now,
let's
imagine,
a
much
bigger
one,
a
much
bigger,
tell
a
telephone
network
but
maybe
managed
by
the
town
or
managed
by
the
city
right.
So
if
you
are
a
new
guy
coming-
and
you
are
evaluating
these
three
networks-
which
one
would
you
pick?
A
So
this
is
a
situation
where
this
is
a
natural
monopoly.
The
dynamics
of
the
market,
the
dynamics
of
the
thing
that
you
are
dealing
with
lends
its
of
two
to
becoming
a
monopoly,
so
telephones,
a
telephone
network,
is
very
very
prone
to
this,
and
something
like
this
something
that
depends
that
that
more
value
is
added
by
one
more
person
adopting
the
thing.
If
this
dynamic
exists-
and
it
exists
very
much
in
software
things
like
infrastructure
software
in
particular,
you
have
this
thing
called
network
effect.
A
So
when
you
have
network
effect,
what
happens
is
there's
two
different
market
objects.
There's
only
only
two
things
that
can
happen
once
you
have
recognized
that
the
thing
you
that
you
are
has
this
tendency
of
having
an
iterative
you
can
either
wind
up
with
a
de
facto
standard
or
you
can
wind
up
with
an
open
standard.
Now,
if
you
don't
know
what
these
words
mean,
even
they
may
seem
relatively
harmless.
Okay,
yeah
they're,
both
standards-
and
you
know,
standards
are
are
a
good
thing
is
the
only
different
word
here
is
de
facto
versus
open
will.
A
What's
the
big
deal
right
as
long
as
meta
standard?
It's
isn't
it
the
same
thing?
Well,
it's
really
not,
and
this
is
where
our
our
friends
at
ISO
really
help
us
out
and,
and
they
do
a
they
do,
a
body
of
work
to
understand
what
the
difference
between
a
de
facto
standard
and
what's
called
a
de
jure
standard,
visual
or
open
standards
or
standards
via
fire.
These
are
the
same
same
things,
they're.
Basically,
open
standards
is
really
all
about.
So,
in
fact,
this
is
a
a
deck.
This
is
a
slide
deck
within
a
slide
deck.
A
This
is
a
deck
that
is
part
of
a
workshop.
Training
will
end
but
run
by
the
ISO,
where
it
explains
what
the
difference
between
a
de
facto
standard
is
and
then
pshew
or
standards.
So
a
de
facto
standard
reflects
a
market
situation.
So
if
this
is
a
situation
where
there
is
a
network
effect
in
place
and
the
network
effect
has
gone
on
for
such
a
long
period
of
time
that
there
is
just
one
thing
that
defines
that
market.
If
you
want
to
use
that
particular
functionality,
you
want
to
use
that
bit
of
infrastructure.
A
There
is
really
only
one
player
that
you
would
seriously
consider.
So
that
is
what
what
a
de
facto
standard
really
is.
It's
a
defective
meaning.
Those
are
the
facts
of
the
of
the
market.
That's
it's
a
not
anything
that
anything
can
engineer.
Anyone
can
engineer.
It
just
happens
by
way
of
market
place.
Evolution,
especially
when
you
have
these
network
effects
in
place.
A
A
They
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
in
subsequent
slides
as
to
why
monopolies
and
monopolies
like
situations
are
so
worrisome.
Why
should?
Why?
Should
we
treat
it
with
a
great
great
deal
of
great
deal
of
concern,
but
the
main
thing
wine
ones
are
lack
of
transparency,
that
decisions
are
are
not
necessarily
driven
by
customers,
they're,
driven
by
the
interests
of
the
monopolies,
rather
than
the
interest
of
the
of
the
consumer
and
by
by
virtue
of
the
monopolies.
A
The
monopolist
can
do
various
things
that
ultimately
goes
down
to
limiting
information,
limiting
flat
market
flexibility.
Now
these
your
standards,
on
the
other
hand,
is
the
opposite.
So
this
is
where
the
market
basically
recognizes
that
there
is
a
network
effect
and
the
way
to
to
counteract
this
network
effect
is
for
all
people
to
agree
on
not
producing
the
same
thing,
but
producing
things
that
basically
confirm
to
a
agreed
upon
level
of
service
so
to
a
consumer
for
for
all
intensive
purposes.
It
looks
very
much
the
same.
Ok,
but
in
fact
these
are
different
things.
A
These
are
different
implementations,
different
different
products
that
come
from
different
providers.
What
the
the
heart
of
open
standards
are
is
this
word
transparency,
we'll
talk
more
about
in
this
slide
the
words
that
are
highlighted,
transparency,
openness
and
consensus.
We'll
talk
more
about
these.
These
are
very
important
concepts
in
understanding
the
value
of
record.
You
know
understanding
the
value
of
open
standards,
but
the
heart
of
any
open
standards
is
actually
due
process
like
you
need
to
have
a
well
documented
process
that
everybody
can
participate
in
an
open
way.
A
All
the
decisions
and
all
of
the
relevant
information
need
to
be
transparent
so
that
both
the
suppliers
and
the
consumers
can
can
participate
in
in
that
in
the
process
in
a
transparent
fashion,
you
need
to
have
openness.
Anyone
that
wishes
to
join
can
should
be
able
to
join
this.
Even
if
it's
a
consumer,
a
new
producer
what-have-you
and
you
need
to
have
consensus,
that's
the
heart
of
it.
You
have
to
agree
upon
the
thing
that
you
are
going
to
all
produce
and
conceive.
So
consensus
is
it.
A
Is
it
very,
very
important
now
consensus
is
a
funny
word:
it's
been
coming
up
a
little
bit
obscene
I'm,
seeing
it
a
little
bit
misunderstanding
of
this
term,
especially
in
in
some
of
the
chakra
the
ecosystem
conversations
consensus
does
not
mean
that
that
he
we
all
agree,
and
you
know
it's
just
a
Nirvana
we're.
You
know
we're
we're
all
friends
and
we
love
each
other
and
all
we
all
say
yes
to
each
other's
propositions.
Is
it
actually
means
quite
the
opposite?
It
means
agreeing
to
disagree
or
another
way.
A
Another
way
to
put
this
is
disagree
and
commit.
So
it's
the
idea
that,
because
you
are
part
of
this
ecosystem
because
you're
part
of
this
market,
you
may
have
your
own
ideas,
but
he
you
have
to
agree
with
the
consensus
process
right
and
once
whatever
the
consensus
process
is
reached,
he
have
two
options:
you
can
either
exit
the
market
or
you
simply
say:
okay,
I,
disagree,
but
I'm
going
to
be
part
of
this
equals
system
anyway.
So
open
standards
we'll
talk
more
about
this
also,
but
some
of
the
disadvantages
are.
It
can
be
longer
right.
A
A
Of
course,
there's
always
a
risk
of
somebody
saying:
hey
I'm,
not
part
of
this,
but
I
won
any
part
of
this
market
and
sort
of
engage
in
disruptive
behavior
and
try
to
become
a
de
facto
standard
to
replace
an
open
standard.
So
these
are
the
risks
on
well
understood,
risks
of
open
standards
by
the
way
Tanya,
so
I
I
forgot
to
mention
this
I
didn't
want
this
talk
to
be
conversational.
A
A
A
After
the
Great
Depression
economists
actually
came
to
understood
these
dynamic
market
dynamics
and
it
came
to
understant
to
these
problems
actually
are
so
there's
actually
three
different
companies
that
are
landmark
cases
where
economists
needed
to
figure
out.
Ok,
this
is
what's
happening.
How
do
we
figure
out
what
the
solution
is
and
the
solutions
are
of
the
stammers?
So
these
examples
are
AT&T
again.
A
If
you
look
at
up.
This
is
basically
that
the
canonical
example
of
what
happens
when
there's
a
network
effect
and
the
network
effect
translates
to
a
monopoly
and
you'll.
Look
if
you're
interested
you
should
look
into
the
roots
of
where
AT&T
started
and
why
AT&T
was
almost
destined
to
become
a
monopoly
from
day.
One
Standard
Oil
Company
is
another
example
and
United
States
steel.
These
are
all
another
example.
A
So
when,
when
you,
you
know
express
this
work
to
a
to
a
non
economists,
you
automatically
think
oh,
it
must
be
just
one
company
that
dominates
the
market
and
it's
like
impossible
to
get
into
that
market.
You
know
they
begin
thinking
in
imagining
those
old
western
films
where
there
is
some
thug
that
by
forcibly
takes
over
all
the
ranches
and
owns
everything
or
the
monopoly
game,
they
think
one
person
wins
in
the
end
and
owns
just
everything,
but
that's
really
not
how
monopoly
power
works
in
in
in
the
real
world.
A
You
don't
have
to
really
have
to
own
everything
all
the
time.
But
what
happens
is
you?
You
can
own
enough
to
control
the
market
that
that
is
the
biggest
distinction
between
a
healthy
ecosystem
and
not
right
when
there's
a
single
vendor
that
actually
can
control
everybody
else's
decisions
right
Bubb
and
they
have
enough
market
power
to
to
dictate
their
way
or
the
highway
right.
A
A
Okay,
so
when
you
have
monopoly
power
yeah
in
the
end,
you
you
get
to
determine
a
higher
pricing,
long
higher
long-term
pricing
of
something
you
can
also
a
controlled,
predatory
pricing,
meaning
that
you
can
at
least
temporarily,
while
you're
establishing
the
monopoly
hold
prices
down
below
what
it
takes
for
you
to
manufacture
it
and
that
basically
will
drive
out
all
of
the
rest
of
the
compression.
Those
that
do
not
have
monopoly
power
will
be
driven
out
of
the
market.
A
There'll
be
fewer
market
choices
in
the
end,
because
not
me,
as
many
people
will
be
able
to
enter
a
market
with
monopoly
part.
Usually
there
is
also
anti-competitive
behaviors.
It's
a
pricing.
Behavior
is
one
obvious
one.
Another
there's
many
other
kind
of
such
behaviors
as
well,
weren't
that
a
monopolist
can
employ,
for
example,
pressure
on
suppliers
and
pressure
on
consumers,
not
to
not
to
go
away
from
them
and
not
to
consider
not
to
consider
any
any
other
competition
in
the
end
of
the
in
the
long
term.
A
This
is
unhealthy
because
it
it
leads
to
less
innovation,
less
choices,
less
quality
of
service
and
a
very
high-risk
monoculture
ecosystem.
Even
if
this
monopolist
was
a
proper
circled
in
monopoly,
power
was
very
benevolent
right.
If
something
were
to
change
in
that
monopoly,
basically,
it
would
put
an
entire
ecosystem
at
risk
right
because
it's
it
becomes
essentially
a
single
point
of
failure.
So
that's
something
I
think
as
as
computer
scientists,
we
understand
you,
so
we
want
to
avoid
single
point
failure
and
that's
effectively
what
this
high
risk
monocots
our
ecosystem
becomes.
A
A
So
now,
let's
dive
into
a
little
bit
of
what
open
standards
really
are.
So
this
is
another
funny
word,
even
even
if
you
did
understand
the
distinction
between
de
facto
standards
and
open
standards.
What
are
open
standards
and
what
are
the
base
necessary
preconditions
to
become
for
something
to
be
an
effective,
open
standard?
That's
something!
A
lot
of
people
also
don't
understand
right.
So
if
you
don't
have
a
true
open
standard,
it's
actually
just
as
dangerous,
maybe
even
more
dangerous
than
a
de
facto
standard.
A
So
there
are
some
basic
things
that
need
to
be
in
place
for
something
to
be
truly
be
another
standard,
so
an
open
standard.
If
you
break
down
to
it,
it
are
really
these
few
components
right.
So
it
is
the
ability
of
corporations
which
are
essentially
entities
on
their
own
groups
of
people.
So
a
groups
of
people
could
be
a
group,
a
set
of
users
set
of
interested
users.
So
often,
if
you
study
US
corporate
dynamics,
a
funny
thing
that
happens
is
that
a
single
individual
shareholder
doesn't
actually
have
that
much
power.
A
It's
at
the
end
of
the
day,
power
can
reside
in
the
corporate
board
of
directors,
because
every
single
shareholder
is
just
there
doing
their
own
little
thing
and
they're
their
own
little
person
and
there's
not
much.
They
can
do
as
an
individual,
but
when
these
people
band
together
and
they
come
together,
they
can
actually
be
probably
the
most
powerful
force
in
the
market
right.
So
one
of
the
participants
or
go
concern,
this
could
be
groups
of
people
that
come
together
that
have
a
common
interest
that
are
not
tied
in
in
any
direct
financial
way.
A
But
usually
these
are
groups
of
users,
groups
of
end-users
groups
of
consumers
and,
of
course,
an
individual
ought
to
also
be
able
to
participate
on
their
own.
In
fact,
back
in
the
JCP
which
I
do
consider
an
open
standard.
I
still
do
you
know
that's
what
I
did
for
a
number
of
years
myself
I
contributed
just
as
an
individual
I
represented.
Nobody
I
represent
it
simply
myself
and
I
contributed
to
that
open
standard
process.
A
The
second
thing
and
the
most
valuable
thing
and
the
thing
that
defines
it
and
differentiates
it
from
a
non
open
standard
is
the
and
the
processor
needs
to
be
well
understood,
well-documented
and
non-discriminatory.
No,
this
is
I'm
not
talking
about
racial
discrimination
or
LGBT
rights.
Here.
What
this
means
is
that
all
of
these
parties,
a
company,
an
individual
or
a
group
of
users,
can
freely
participate
without
hindrance,
and
this
this
is
guaranteed
by
the
process
itself.
Okay,
finally,
there's
a
well
understood
set
of
artifacts
right
in
the
end.
A
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
opposite
unders
need
to
produce
something
and
it
needs
to
produce
enough
so
that
the
world
can
use
it
right.
So
the
output
needs
to
be
useful
and
repeatable,
so
any
particular
person
can
should
be
able
to
take
this
output
and
produce
something
useful
that
is,
that
can
be
used
by
this
entire
ecosystem,
whoever
it
may
be
in
the
world.
Okay,
all
right
so,
like
I
said
the
process
is
the
is
the
biggest
deal
here,
so
this
particular
diagram
I
think
Tanya
will
be
very
familiar
with
this.
A
This
is
actually
the
the
Eclipse
specific
Eclipse
Foundation
specification
process,
the
one
that
is
being
applied
for
Jakarta
II,
but
that's
actually
not
the
point
right.
So
the
real
point
I
wanted
to
give
you
is
to
show
you
how
a
a
process
looks
like
okay
and
what
are
the
fundamentally
key
important
points
to
having
that
this
sort,
this
sort
of
open
standards.
If
you
look
at
the
GCP
documentation,
it
has
something
very,
very
similar.
A
If
you
look
at,
for
example,
OSI,
it
has
a
very
similar
process,
these
all
look
very
similar
and
they
all
have
the
same
fundamental
components.
There's
always
a
proposal.
Anybody
can
propose
an
idea
or
propose
a
proposal
standard.
It
there's
always
a
review
and
these
are
all
independent.
So
if
you
look
at
the
u.s.
system,
there's
there's
three
branches
of
government
right:
the
executive
branch,
the
legislative
branch
and
then
the
presidential,
or
rather
the
Congressional
branch.
So
these
parties
in
Anoka
started
are
also
different
bodies
right.
A
So
somebody
when
somebody
is
reviewing
something
there
supposed
to
be
an
independent
view
of
what's
going
on,
it's
not
supposed
to
be
all
the
same
people
right
so
in
each
of
these
things,
and
each
of
these
steps,
there's
always
an
open
review
process
and
anybody
should
be
able
to
participate
in
this
review,
especially
as
an
end
user.
You
ought
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
review
process,
so
you
can
review
a
proposal.
You
can
review
an
execution
plan.
You
can
review
the
development
process
itself
the
development
process.
A
A
Finally,
there
will
be
a
version
that
is
a
big
mass
from
meaning
it
release
okay,
so
that
release
ought
to
be
reviewed
as
well
and
then
finally
ratified
and
consumed
to
be
put
out
there
in
the
world
as
something
that
everybody
can
take
a
look
at,
and
this
is
just
the
process-
there's
many
there's
other
parts
of
other
parts
of
the
picture
as
well.
In
order
for
something
to
be
counted
as
an
open
standard,
but
this
is
the
heart
of
it.
A
You
need
to
have
a
well
documented
well
under
Sur
process
that
you
have
these
basic
components,
and
the
most
important
component
is
is
a
specific
review
process
and
a
specific
breakdown
or
when
things
occur,
and
things
can't
just
move
along
without
consensus.
Rightly
so
you
need
you
need
in
front
consensus
or
through
this
review
process
before
something
can
become
something
otherwise
yeah,
it's
no
different
than
a
de
facto
standard,
if
somebody
just
creating
something
and
putting
it
out
there,
whatever
they
feel
like.
So
that's
not
the
case
it.
A
There
has
to
be
this,
this
part
of
it
in
it
in
order
to
be
for
it
to
be
contra,
dance
or
Instagram.
This
in
general
is
what
an
open
standard
produces
right.
So
we
talked
about.
We
talked
about
the
players
who
can
be
participants
in
an
open
standard.
We
talked
about
the
open
standard
process
itself
and
fine.
Let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
is
the
final
log,
especially
in
terms
of
technology.
What
are
the
things
that
are
actually
produced
by
standards
body?
A
So
these
are
this:
what
I
call
is,
is
the
specification
triads
right,
so
the
reason
I
call
it
a
trial
is
because
I
put
together
put
together
this.
This
diagram
I
used
to
do
a
clock
on
on
the
GCP,
that's
very,
very
similar,
and
what
I
found
out
is
this
funny
little
triangles
that
shows
that
all
over
the
place,
these
are
triads
or
bias
cons.
So
that's
why
I
call
it
a
try,
a
specification
triads.
So
the
three
basic
artifacts
are
specification
documents
describing.
What
is
this
specification
is
about
and
what
are
its
features?
A
Then
you
need
a
compatibility
test
kit,
something
that
is
executable
other
than
a
document.
You
need
something
to
be
an
executable
set
of
tests
that
says:
okay,
if
you
have
an
implementation,
and
you
run
these
tests
against
it-
that
these
tests
should
confirm
that
something
is
actually
compatible.
It
meets
it
meets
the
meets
the
standard
and
the
specification
document
in
compatibility
test
kit
reinforce
each
other.
Okay
and
finally,
you
have
compatible
implementations.
Somebody
comes
up
with
with
the
product
end
product
that
conforms
to
the
standard
conforms
to
the
specification.
A
In
some
cases,
you
can
have
a
mandated
reference
implementation,
for
example,
in
the
JCP.
Everything
is
supposed
to
have
a
reference
implementation,
at
least
one
implementation
that
is
guaranteed
to
be
in
place,
and
it's
always
the
same
one.
In
case
of
jakarta
ii,
you
still
need
at
least
one
implementation,
but
it's
not
does
not
necessarily
need
to
be
the
same
one.
Okay,
so
you
in
in
the
Jakarta
evolves.
You
can
have
multiple
implementations
as
long
as
there's
/
standards
is
at
least
one
of
those
okay,
we'll
see
how
this
works
out.
A
In
the
end,
this
may
become
a
situation
where
it's
just
a
de
facto
reference
implementation
or
not
often,
that's
what
happens.
That's
why
it's
sometimes
a
good
idea,
just
to
say
hey.
This
is
the
reference
implementation,
it's
well
understood
by
everyone.
Now
this
was
another
weakness
of
open
standards.
You
can
always
have
partial
implementations,
things
that
don't
quite
pass
the
compatible
to
just
get
this
well.
This
is
why
you
need
a
Verna's
regime
and
trademarks
and
legal
muscle
behind
open
standards
to
avoid
these
things
called
partial
implementations.
A
So
this
is
just
again
very,
very
dangerous
situation
and
that's
why
I
put
the
warning
sign
on
my
diagram
and
finally,
you
need
governance
right.
So
it's
it
goes
back
to
that
review
boxes.
All
those
three
are
for
review
boxes
after
after
each
of
them.
You
need
somebody
overseeing
all
of
this,
making
sure
that
hey
things
are
not
going
wrong
right.
It's
not
that
people
don't
have
good
intentions.
A
It's
just
that
it's
difficult
to
guarantee
anything
if
there
is
not
a
independent
body
overseeing
and
making
sure
that
the
best
interests
of
the
of
the
ecosystem
are
actually
preserved
at
all
ones.
You
need
stakeholders
right,
so
you
need
you
need
at
least
a
dominant
part
of
the
market
participating
in
open
standards
for
them
for
them
to
be
successful
and
then,
finally,
you
need
a
community.
You
need.
You
need
a
set
of
people
interested
in
this
and
interested
in
the
mind.
Sure!
A
That's
so
that's
that's
how
that's
another
true
value
of
an
attribute,
but
nobody
cares
about
it.
There's
no
community
around
it!
Nobody!
Nobody
sees
its
value.
You
know
it
won't
be
successful,
so
you
need
the
community
around
that
as
well.
So
there's
a
debate
around
open
standards
versus
open
source,
especially
since
the
1970s
or
so
suddenly
during
the
1980s,
there's
been
a
a
debate
that
opens
somehow
open
source
and
replace
those
open
standards,
and
you
don't
need
open
standards
anymore.
A
The
reality
is
very
far
from
the
truth.
Right
so
open
standards
do
provide
things
like
transparency.
They
do
not
provide
guarantees
on
much
more
in
the
more
important
things
that
we
all
talk
to
work,
and
hopefully
by
now
you
recognize.
So
there
is
no
guarantee
TCK
in
opens
in
open
standards.
There's
no
guarantee
transparency,
there's
no
guaranteed
interoperability.
There's
no
guarantee
depend
on
your
traffic,
so
it's
false
right,
so
open
open
source
is
not
a
replacement
to
open
standards.
However,
it
is
an
important
complement.
A
So
if
you
really
look,
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
open
standards
and
open
source
to
be
working
together,
and
in
fact
this
is
how
it
works
in
practice.
So,
for
every
single
successful
bit
of
software,
most
successful
bits
of
software
that
stand
the
test
of
time,
you'll
find
out
that
it
is
actually
backed
by
one
or
more
open
standards
and
open
standards
in
order
for
them
to
be
successful,
need
to
adopt
open
source.
So
the
TCK
needs
to
be
open
source
implementation.
A
Okay,
so
these
are
some
of
the
usual
complaints
against
open
standards
and
then
running
a
little
short
on
time.
So
I'm
going
to
breeze
over
some
of
this,
so
standards
are
slow,
their
design
by
Kenichi,
meaning
you
don't
get
to
have
your
way.
You
know
it's
basically
what
whatever
whoever
shows
up
and
is
the
most
vocal
that
ultimately
dictates
the
decision
standards.
Don't
guarantee
portability,
yeah,
that's
true:
they
don't.
They
cannot
guarantee
100%
portability.
A
Don't
have
my
feature
that
I
value,
XYZ
right
or
my
product
has
this
feature
XYZ,
that
the
standards
doesn't
have
standards
from
innovate,
it's
just
a
bunch
of
vendor
experts
and
so
on
and
so
on,
and
so
on.
There's
a
bunch
of
different
complaints.
You
can
come
out
against
open
standards,
so
hopefully
my
view
on
this
is
relatively
clear
from
this
slide
right.
A
So
nothing
in
in
in
in
the
world
is
perfect
right,
so
you
can
take
the
best
idea
in
the
world
and
shoot
a
bunch
of
holes
in
it
right,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
that
idea
doesn't
have
value.
This
very
things
very
little
things
that
you
cannot
that
do
not
have
downsides.
The
real
question
is:
is
it
worth
it
right?
So
these
are
some
of
the
answers
of
some
of
the
common
ones
that
come
up
with
that
there
I
see
Alex,
so
standards
are
slow,
useless
there.
That's
very
true
standard
coming
to
consensus.
A
Is
it
slower,
then
somebody
just
deciding
to
do
whatever
it
is
that
they
want
without
consulting
anyone
or
talking
to
anyone
or
bothering
to
understand
what
the
end
user
needs
are
when
you
do
these
things,
it
takes
time
right
so
reaching
consensus
takes
time
and
getting
things
right
takes
time.
Okay,
so
if
you
want
to
make
mistakes
go
very
fast,
if
you
want
to
do
something
right,
you
will
probably
take
a
little
bit
more
time
to
do
to
do
it
and
you
will
you'll
bring
along
your
entire
village
with
design
by
committee.
A
Yes,
this
can
happen.
Okay,
it
depends
on
again
that
openness,
the
desire
and
and
execution
for
openness
if
it's
not
very
open
in
practice,
it
can
become
designed
by
committee,
but
it's
still
better
than
a
totally
benevolent
dictatorship
where
there
is
absolutely
no
possibility
of
anyone
providing
anything.
They
don't
guarantee
portability.
A
You
don't
want
a
standard
to
have
the
kitchen
sink,
you
don't
want
it
to
be
bloated
or
complex,
it'll
and
the
end
of
the
day
have
a
detrimental
effect
if
their
standard
is
complex
or
bloated.
So
we
actually
don't
want
all
features
of
the
standard
standards
drawn
in
a
way.
That's
actually
not
really
true
right
and
it
hasn't
been
true.
If
you
look
at
more
standards,
they
do
innovate
in
small
ways
right.
So
whenever
there
are
whenever
this
is
an
engineering
activity
and
people
are
working
together
to
come
up
with
something
new.
A
Inevitably
there
is
there's
inhibition,
but
what
there
isn't
is
adventurism,
so
you
don't
want
a
lot
of
innovation
in
open
standards
anyway.
Okay,
so
you
don't
want
to
over
sanitize,
unproven
or
niche
ideas
again
that
G
values
the
fundamental
fundamental
value
proposition
of
the
standard.
It
needs
to
be
a
stable
core
right.
It
can
be
an
unstable
core
that
you
cannot
rely
upon
because
there's
always
bad
ideas
that
make
it
into
the
standard,
and
it's
not
just
a
bunch
of
bender
experts.
A
It
can
be
if
you,
for
example,
as
good
as
the
ISO
is
good
luck.
As
an
average
scientist
getting
getting
attention
from
the
ISO
committee,
you
better
be
like
some
genius-
or
you
know,
have
some
really
big
organization
behind
you,
okay,
but
it
hasn't
been
true
for
Java
or
as
standards
in
a
long
time
and
that's
something
we
should
strive
to
maintain
as
well.
So
it
shouldn't
just
be
a
bunch
of
vendor
experts
that
define
direction
and
do
whatever
they
want
right.
A
The
average
Joe
Schmo
needs
to
be
part
of
the
part
of
the
equation
here
and
we
need
to
make
make
ourselves
get
ourselves
in
there
make
sure
that
we
are
hurt.
Make
sure
people
understand
that
they
need
to
reach
back
out
to
us
open
to
us
George
most
to
to
listen
to
what
we
have
to
say
so
at
the
end
of
the
name,
we
can
use
the
thing
and
we
can
advocate
so
all
of
this,
hopefully
the
subtext
is
we
need
you
right.
So
don't
just
go
away.
Yeah!
A
Don't
just
listen
to
my
talk
today
and
say:
oh
nice,
to
see
you
bye-bye
right
today
we
need,
we
need
you
to
get
involved
right.
So,
if
nothing
else,
you
need
to
be
vocal
about
keeping
an
eye
on
things
and
making
sure
that
bad
things
don't
happen.
So
jakarta
ii,
in
my
opinion,
is
guaranteed.
It
has
a
lot
of
guarantees,
people
the
people
that
have
formulated
the
work
so
far
come
up
with
the
process
and
the
structure
there.
They
have
all
these
things
in
mind.
A
A
Finally,
I
want
to
throw
a
little
bit
of
a
monkey
wrench
in
my
so
far
about
50
minute
conversation
standards
are
a
great
thing.
Don't
get
me
wrong?
It's
a
we've
already
talked
about
why
open
standards
need
to
be
in
place
and
why
we
all
need
to
work
hard
to
ensure
that
it
succeeds,
and
it
does
not
succeed
on
its
own.
It's
kind
of
like
democracy.
If
you
don't
care
about
it,
you
know,
ultimately,
it
turns
into
fascism
or
or
something
like
that.
There
is
no
longer
a
democratic
system.
A
A
Besides
open
standards
where
open
standards
are
really
the
dominant
player
we
talked
but
before
what
it
means
to
be
a
monopoly
monopoly.
It
doesn't
mean
you
own
everything.
It
means
that
you're
just
important
enough
right,
so
in
this
case,
what
one
standards
can
be
just
important
enough
and
still
allow
for
other
players
to
innovate
so
that
those
can
turn
them
downstream
turn
into
open
standards.
A
Standards
can
safeguard
against
monopolies,
but
one
other
thing
that
it
does
not
does
not
safeguard
against
his
is
oligopolies.
So
when
there
is,
there
is
an
open
standard,
but
there's
too
few
people
that
control
it
right,
and
this
is
again
why
users
and
the
user
communities
are
important
right
sure
and
why
players
outside
of
the
open
standards
are
sometimes
important
to
serve
as
counter
balances
against
this
oligarchy
situation
and
all
of
our
keys.
Don't
are
not
always
malicious
right.
A
They
just
kind
of
happen
because
you
know
there's
a
small
set
of
players
that
work
with
each
other
very
closely
and
they're
kind
of
buddies,
and
they
don't
wanna
sort
of
go
against
each
other.
So
it's
sort
of
complacent
collusion
right.
It's
not
something
that
these
people
are
evil.
It's
just
that
you
know.
They've
gone
they've
come
to
be
too
comfortable
with
each
other,
and
so
this
is
another
reason
why
you
need
some
things
like
user
communities
and
things
outside
the
standard,
and
there
is
there
can
be
peaceful
coexistence
absolutely
right.
A
So
this
is
why
you
need
these
things
and
why
this
should
be
treated
as
a
valuable
part
of
the
standards
ecosystem,
very
valuable
extension.
You
need
to
basically
value
these
things,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
don't
value
them
too
much
right.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
you
value
them
too
much,
they
will
probably
be
then
your
next
dictator.
A
So
you
need
to
always
maintain
counterweights,
but
the
important
thing
should
always
be
up
estándares,
but
there's
there
needs
to
be
an
ecosystem
around
that
as
well,
where
innovation
happens
and
Quinten
Tetrick
competitive
counterweights
exists
at
the
end
of
the
day.
This
is
all
about
choice
right.
It's
a
fundamental
idea
that
you
need
a
healthy
amount
of
choices
as
a
consumer,
so
those
things
need
to
be
in
place
for
you,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
there's
one
message,
I
would
like
to
leave
you
with
you.
A
This
fine
morning
at
least
a
good
morning
for
me
so
far,
is
you
they
empowered
user
right.
So
you
ultimately
decide
all
of
this
you're
in
the
driving
seat.
If
you
decide
to
be
an
empowered
user,
you
can
make
all
the
difference
in
the
world.
If
you
just
decide
to
do
nothing
and
let
somebody
make
all
the
decisions
well,
you
know
you
won't
wind
up
with
good
at
good
outcomes.
A
A
Standard
should
absolutely
be
change
standards.
It's
it's!
It's
an
important
balance
to
maintain
health
and
long-term
maintainability
in
terms
of
a
standard,
so
an
open-circuit
cannot
be
like
like
a
coconut
product.
You
can't
you
because
there
is
a
large
ecosystem
that
depends
on
open
standard
and
multiple
people
need
to
reach
consensus
and
I
adopt
the
standard.
It
can't
be
so
fast
that
nobody
can
keep
up
with
it.
That's
so
it
needs
to
be
deliberately
a
little
bit
slower.
Then
it's
maximum
velocity,
okay,
so
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is
in
terms
of
Jakarta.
A
My
sense
is
no
more
than
one
one
release
a
year:
I
probably
release
a
year
for
Jakarta.
He
is
a
healthy
pace,
healthy
about-face,
anything
more
than
that.
I
really
suspect
it's
too
much.
Maybe
the
answer
is
that
this
quarterly
non
LTS
releases
and
really
one
this
one
long-term
support
release
for
for
Jakarta,
II
and
in
fact,
I
have
the
same
opinion
about
about
Java
SC
as
well.
I
will
leave
the
current
pace.
That
things
are
in
is
probably
unsustainable.
B
So
many
people
are
just
thinking
and
following
the
talk
let
me
see
there
is
a
ask
a
question
here:
okay,
so
I
have
from
Martina
Jabez.
So
in
order
to
get
transparency
and
have
a
truly
impact
on
the
market,
it
is
recommended
to
use
the
the
judge.
Stand,
the
the
judge,
standards
right,
open
standards,
so.
A
Yes,
in
order
to
guarantee
transparency,
you
need
those
elements
right.
You
need
people
to
be
able
to
participate.
In
particular,
I
would
say:
groups
of
users,
Java
user
groups,
absolutely
the
Jakarta
ambassadors
is
another
way
of
participating.
As
a
group,
you
need
to
be
able
to
have
individuals
that
want
that
are
able
to
person,
even
if
they
don't
want
to
be
part
of
any
other
group.
They
themselves
should
be
able
to
participate.
Company's
needs
need
to
be
able
to
participate
in
an
equal
fashion.
A
You
need
that
open
process,
open,
well-defined
process
that
lends
itself
to
all
of
these
things
and
lenses
off
to
external
review.
You
need
important
enough
artifacts.
So
again,
those
the
specification
documents,
the
TCK
and
the
compatible
implementations.
So
it's
a
bunch
of
different
things
in
order
for
two
that
need
to
be
in
place
that,
in
order
to
make
for
all
that
is
to
happen,
absolutely.
B
B
You
can
always
also
have
a
question
posted
here
on
this
broadcast
platform
and
we
can
get
back
to
you
later,
but
I
also
want
to
emphasize
what
Reza
was
communicating.
We
need
you
to
get
involved
and
please
feel
free
to
approach
us
if
you
have
any
concerns
in
how
to
do
that,
and
just
a
reminder
for
everyone
that
there
is
a
big
discussion
going
on
between
collaboration
between
micro
profile
and
Jakarta
Yi,
we
extended
you
the
invite
actually
Emilia
from
who
is
very,
very
involved
in
both
of
communities,
but
particularly
micro
profile.
B
Extended
invites
to
the
whole
Jakarta
community
on
Tuesdays.
There
are
micro
profile
hangouts,
where
some
of
these
topics
will
be
discussed.
So
please
participate,
and
you
know,
let's
make
open
standards
in
Java
e,
strong
and
very
much
relevant,
so
I
think
that's
everything
from
us
we're
two
minutes
over
time.
Please
look
for
look
for
another
tact,
talk
and
anyway,
to
reach
out
and
get
involved.