[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] General questions -- regarding Spec. release

[Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

These came up while I was reviewing Jakarta EE Concurrency with the 
latest mentor checklist. I'm posing the questions here on the chance 
that someone's already encountered these and/or has an answer for the 
rest of us to follow:

TCK Format and content: I don't think we ever settled on the question of 
what to allow for final TCK that can be published through Maven Central. 
This was discussed over e-mail in early December and it's been carried 
on the Spec. committee as a "to do" item under the heading of "TCK 
Archive format." It's time for us to reach a conclusion on this topic. 
We need to settle on the final package format and a suitable 
manifest/BOM so that we can properly advise the Spec. development teams 
properly. (I'll send a reply to this thread to bump it, in case you use 
"threaded" view in your e-mail client.)

TCK SHA sum: In the past, we used SHA-256 for TCK. Do we want to allow 
Spec. teams to simply refer to the SHA1 hash that is produced when the 
artifacts are uploaded to Maven? Otherwise, we will need teams to 
continue to manually generate the SHA-256 and include the SHA in the 
ancillary material (the PR, the CCR, etc.)

License for TCKs -- I believe the TCK license must be the Eclipse TCK 
License. For publication at Maven, we allow the TCK to be dual licensed 
-- and add EPL (EPL allows it to be pushed to Maven. Users who submit 
CCRs agree to the terms of the TCK License. Is it acceptable for the 
Spec. teams to just merge these two licenses together? (Me? I'd 
recommend we provide a reference license that we know is "blessed".)

At what point is the EMO contacted? Once the Spec. checklist is 
completed? Or, does the Spec. dev. team initiate that whenever it is ready?

Checklist item "no other files"

Based on previous problems I think that we have concluded its best not 
to force the HTML Spec. copies to embed all images. Therefore, is it 
true that we do not require embedded images in HTML documents (i.e. it's 
okay to have an images folder that contains images in the HTML). 
Correct? Do we need/want to settle on the naming convention so that the 
HTML pages can be easily copied, or do we just leave that to the 
discretion of the development teams?