Thanks Mike for your clarifying post. While I still don't like the EE4J name, things seems way better now to me.
One question I have on that is wether EE4J could be used as the OpenJDK equivalent for Java EE and in the same way that MicroProfile has just done with MP Config: spec developed on an open group and then submitted to the JCP.
I envision a very similar idea for EE4J: create working groups, develop specs and APIs and then, once done, submit a massive "Java EE 9" JSR for it, that will then release the artifacts with the "javax" package (this point is *really* important), and maintaining the Java EE name.
That leaves the application server certification open though. But with all TCKs sources avaiable, I doubt certification by itself will be so important as it is now, since everybody will be able to test servers on their own to verify they are spec complaint.
I also imagine major vendors won't like this option that much since Oracle would still be responsible of the final "Java EE" release through the JCP, but I think this can be an acceptable compromise solution.
