[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Review for approval Spec Committee Meeting Minutes Dec 12th, 2018
|
Bill,Although statements similar to this
have been raised in the past, I always took the "brighter side"
of the statements... That is, you also indicated that you were continuing
to work with your legal team and I was hoping that you would be able to
convince them otherwise... As this continues to drag out, I am getting
less and less confident that we're going to get any significant subset
of the specs. And, as this has been discussed on our calls... The
recreation of these specs is going to be extremely time-consuming and error-prone.
We're already moving too slow in some people's minds (Jakarta EE
in general) and this lack of specs could be the back breaker... Just
being honest...
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutterFrom:
Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>To:
Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>Date:
12/13/2018 06:02 PMSubject:
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
Review for approval Spec Committee Meeting Minutes Dec 12th, 2018Sent by:
jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yes. This is not news, actually, and the 2/3 number
wasn't discussed in that meeting. That's just a repeat of the statement
I've made several times in the Steering Committee meeting.
Scott Stark wrote on 12/13/18 3:33 PM:I had to drop at 3 past the hour, so Bill's statement
on the spec contributions must have been made as a last item summary? If
2/3 of the existing specs are not going to be contributed, this means that
they need to be recreated based on source code and the as yet to be determined
copyright agreement around the javax.* namespace? On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 7:41 AM Tanja Obradovic <tanja.obradovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:All,please review the minutes for approval next week. David,
please review and let me know if any corrections are needed regarding the
TCK conversation / discussion.
Many thanks!
Spec Committee Meeting Minutes Dec 12th,
2018
Attendees (present in bold):
Kenji Kazumura - Fujitsu, Michael
DeNicola
Dan Bandera - IBM, Kevin Sutter,
Alasdair Nottingham
Bill Shannon - Oracle, Ed Bratt,
Dmitry Kornilov
Steve Millidge - Payara, Arjan
Tijms
Scott Stark - Red Hat, Mark
Little
David Blevins - Tomitribe,
Richard Monson-Haefel
Ivar Grimstad - PMC Representative
Alex Theedom - Participant
Member
Werner Keil - Committer Member
- Past business / action items
- Approval of meeting min Nov 28th
- Scott Stark moved, Bill Shannon second it,
no objections. Minutes approved for publishing
- Jakarta EE Working Group calls - next call
Jan 30th
- Jakarta EE Spec process and Jakarta EE NoSQL project
- based on EFSP
v1.0, but not necessarily the same
- We will use Jakarta EE NoSQL to test EF
Spec Process and do customization if necessary to create Jakarta EE Spec
Process.By going through the process with Jakarta EE NoSQL, we will capture
notes and evolve a draft of the Jakarta EE Specification Process.
- Jakarta EE NoSQL provisioning is next step; we are waiting
on :
- Board approval of the new IP policy(DONE)
- Agreements need to be in place (MCCA and WGPA) for project
lead/primary committer (Tomitribe)
- Agreements for other committers (being pursued by the
EF Membership Team via separate channels).
- This is expected around late Q1 2019
- The equivalent of a JCP maintenance review needs to be
addressed (additional notes Nov 28th)
- Wayne to author a draft. Based on that work we can decide
whether it is part of the Jakarta EE Specification Process or a future
version of the EFSP.
- We need a “Dials and knobs” document (possibly an FAQ)
that details how a Working Group might extend the EFSP.
- Suggestion to describe what is immutable.
- TCK process - David Blevins
- Refer to email “Understanding the Current
Specification Process” and Understanding
Current TCK Process
- Completion of the TCK process no later than
Jan 30th 2019
- The topic of distribution of TCK via Maven
Central was discussed
- Compiled ZIP files can also be distributed
via EF downloads server.
- Some of these TCKs are quite large and are
produced several times a year, so Sonatype may not be happy with us.
- May consider using EF hosted Nexus instance
- Do we need consumers to explicitly agree
to any terms to get access to the TCK for a Ratified Final Specification?
(e.g. some sort of click through)
- “We gotta have an audit trail” - Dan Bandera
- Werner - Dec 12th to provide an update on
Jakarta EE NoSQL
- Nothing to add. We’re waiting on documents to be signed.
Hopefully we’ll have what we need in 2019Q1. There is effectively zero
chance that we will be able to bootstrap NoSQL in 2018.
- Java EE Specification Documents contribution from Oracle
-> this is still being discussed, however for now the answer is NO
- No news on this are expected in next little while
- Bill Shannon reported that the best case scenario is ⅓
specs will be contributed and ⅔ will not be (EJB and Servlet will not
be contributed); criteria for deciding what specification can be contributed
is not clear yet
--
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
