No reply … needed

USUALLY I GET reactions to this column in short order. After ” A Memo to Pat Sueltz “, Scott McNealy took some of my advice and declared that “Java won” in his JavaOne keynote. I also received advice from several readers, including one Microsoft fan who didn’t need a GPRS device to determine the precise coordinates of my proximity to McNealy.

Last week’s column about innovation in SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol), ” Google, Dave, and Ozzie ,” drew swift praise from Dave Winer and, more importantly, a promise to support Ray Ozzie’s Groove technology “if they open it up so that Radio [Userland, Winer’s Weblog authoring platform] can participate in their network without jumping into the box.” Only the day before, Winer pushed back on Microsoft to support independent developers “instead of loving closed boxes like Ray Ozzie’s product.”

But not a word have I heard from IBM standards chief Bob Sutor about ” Gorillas in the mist ,” a tour through the political jungles of the Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I). I heard from Microsoft strategist Charles Fitzgerald (though not for publication), and from colleagues from Sun and Oasis correcting the spelling of the names of founding XML working group members Eve Maler and Murata Makoto.

But nothing from Sutor, who started WS-I with Microsoft’s Neil Charney and seems determined to keep Sun at arm’s length. At first, when InfoWorld Editor in Chief Michael Vizard and I interviewed Sutor and Charney about the announcements, it sounded like things could be worked out.

Charney spoke earnestly about the importance of an open process. “Along the way we’ve tried to learn from previous organizations; we tried to bring a lot of that to bear on the structure of this organization. And one of the things we’ve worked very hard to do was ensure that the process itself is visible, that the tools that are created — the tests, the compliance, all of that — isn’t some mysterious sort of black box,” Charney said.

Sutor too was gracious in his ecumenical view of the Web services universe: “It’s going to come from multiple standards organizations. We’re not going to put 25 standards all in the W3C [or] Oasis,” he said, referring to the World Wide Web Consortium and the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, respectively. “So there needs to be some sort of central industry community that helps to make sense of all that. I mean that’s part of what we’re trying to accomplish here.

“If you look at what’s recently happened in the W3C around the Web services activity, there are three working groups,” Sutor continued. “There’s a Web services architecture group, chaired by Sun; there’s the one that’s working on SOAP, which is chaired by IBM; and there’s one on Web services description, which is chaired by Microsoft. Everybody’s in there.”

Charney admitted frustration at the reaction of some media to the WS-I initiative. “We’re at this crossroads. Web services could start to go vendor-specific, and there goes an opportunity to address interoperability and integration, all the things that we have been slammed on,” Charney said. As for Sun’s participation, Charney sounded open: “The Sun conversations I’ve heard about [express] high interest in the organization.”

Sutor: “Right, that’s what I’ve seen, too.”

Charney: “This is the strong intention, and we have every expectation that they’d actually join on.”

But what Sun meant by “joining on” was not the same thing; Sun wanted a seat at the founding board’s table. IBM and Microsoft meant Sun could have “a seat in the community.”

By the time Vizard and I sat down with Sutor a week later at IBM, the positions had hardened. Sun could have a role in the working groups, Sutor said. “So once we get past the initial phase, there will be more than enough leadership.” Sutor rejected Sun’s all-or-nothing position on being a founding member. But if Sun can get beyond that, Sutor continued, “There’s plenty of room for people to contribute and lead and make a lot of noise about ‘look at [our] great leadership.’

“Sun has not particularly been a booster of Web services nor of any activity that they did not start themselves,” Sutor insisted. “It’s a free country. They are free to start whatever organizations they want to start.”

“Sun has to figure out what they’re doing in this space. Their actions will affect how they will participate in this and how they’ll participate in future things. In the meanwhile we’re still very active in the JCP,” Sutor added, referring to the Sun-led Java Community Process, whose structure has been criticized by IBM for lack of openness.

Vizard: “As soon as they change their human rights policy, we’ll invite them into the United Nations.”

Sutor: “There are politics in the industry. We do the best we can.”

Vizard: “If Java suddenly went into an official standards body, would that change some of your feelings toward Sun?”

Sutor: “We’ve pushed for that in part because Sun controls the so-called Java community very carefully.”

Me: “Just like you control the WS-I very carefully.”

Sutor: “Not any more. We got the thing started. We brought in other people. But at this point we’re just a member of the board.”

I pointed out that this is precisely what Sun says about the JCP.

I asked Sutor if he saw the irony in calling one thing political and the other recalcitrant. “I have nothing new to say on it, to be very honest with you,” Sutor said. “I hope they join the community. I don’t know whether they will or not. If they don’t, it’s going to be hundreds of companies working in this thing and not Sun. Sun will have to deal with that one way or another. That’s all I can say.”

Whatever he does have to say, the answer remains the same, which is: Go away, Sun.